Michael Banck <michael.ba...@credativ.de> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 02:05:13PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Agreed. If paths are reproducible and cleaned up on next run it's also
>> much less of an issue to just leave them around till the next run.
>> Which we imo also should do for non-failing tmp_check directories.
> In general yes, but I think it should be checked what the overall
> storage requirements will be if one set of all data directories is kept
> around.
> I was surprised the src/bin/pg_basebackup/t TAP tests took up several
> hundred megabytes (IIRC) when I ran them, so if other tests are similar,
> it might make a few animals run out of diskspace as soon as this is
> deployed without a heads-up to the operators.
src/test/recovery/ alone eats 2.6GB if one sets CLEANUP => 0 as I did
upthread. So I think leaving them there by default is a nonstarter.
It might be okay to leave failed tests' dirs in place, but even there,
I'd personally prefer a manual control knob.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
