Hi,
On 2023-02-14 11:38:06 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> No, nothing specific in mind. But maybe like these:
> - tests for causing obscure errors that would never otherwise be
> reached without something deliberately designed to fail a certain way
I think there's some cases around this that could b
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:44 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-02-14 09:26:47 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > I've observed suggested test cases get rejected as being overkill, or
> > because they would add precious seconds to the test execution. OTOH, I
> > felt such tests would still he
Hi,
On 2023-02-14 09:26:47 +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> I've observed suggested test cases get rejected as being overkill, or
> because they would add precious seconds to the test execution. OTOH, I
> felt such tests would still help gain some additional percentages from
> the "code coverage" stats
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:42 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on rebasing [1], my patch to make relation extension scale
> better.
>
> As part of that I'd like to add tests for relation extension. To be able to
> test the bulk write strategy path, we need to have a few backends conc
On 2023-02-13 Mo 14:34, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
On 2023-02-13 14:15:24 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
On 2023-02-13 13:45:41 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
Are there existing tests that we should add into that set that you're
thinking of..? I've been w
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-02-13 14:55:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> bigdisk, bigcpu?
> Works for me.
> I'll probably just add bigdisk as part of adding a test for bulk relation
> extensions, mentioning in a comment that we might want bigcpu if we have a
> test for it?
No objection here.
On 2023-02-13 14:55:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> bigdisk, bigcpu?
Works for me.
I'll probably just add bigdisk as part of adding a test for bulk relation
extensions, mentioning in a comment that we might want bigcpu if we have a
test for it?
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2023-02-13 13:54:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> it seems like this class could eventually include tests that run a long time
>> but don't necessarily eat disk space. "resource-intensive" is too long.
> I'm not sure we'd want to combine time-intensive and disk-space-inten
Hi,
On 2023-02-13 14:15:24 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > On 2023-02-13 13:45:41 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Are there existing tests that we should add into that set that you're
> > > thinking of..? I've been working with the Kerberos tests an
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2023-02-13 13:45:41 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Are there existing tests that we should add into that set that you're
> > thinking of..? I've been working with the Kerberos tests and that's
> > definitely one that seems to fit this d
Hi,
On 2023-02-13 13:54:59 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bikeshedding a bit ... is "large" the right name? It's not awful but
> I wonder if there is a better one
I did wonder about that too. But didn't come up with something more poignant.
> it seems like this class could eventually include tests t
Hi,
On 2023-02-13 13:45:41 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Are there existing tests that we should add into that set that you're
> thinking of..? I've been working with the Kerberos tests and that's
> definitely one that seems to fit this description...
I think the kerberos tests are already opt-i
Andres Freund writes:
> As part of that I'd like to add tests for relation extension. To be able to
> test the bulk write strategy path, we need to have a few backends concurrently
> load > 16MB files.
> It seems pretty clear that doing that on all buildfarm machines wouldn't be
> nice / welcome.
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> I'm working on rebasing [1], my patch to make relation extension scale
> better.
>
> As part of that I'd like to add tests for relation extension. To be able to
> test the bulk write strategy path, we need to have a few backends concurrentl
Hi,
I'm working on rebasing [1], my patch to make relation extension scale
better.
As part of that I'd like to add tests for relation extension. To be able to
test the bulk write strategy path, we need to have a few backends concurrently
load > 16MB files.
It seems pretty clear that doing that o
15 matches
Mail list logo
