Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-07-11 Thread Fabien COELHO
The other option, suggested by Andres somewhere, is to have a new parameter to pg_regress, something like --run-serially. After looking at the source, ISTM that this option already exists under a different signature: --max-connections 1 So you would use the same parallel sc

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-07-11 Thread Josh Berkus
On 07/11/2013 09:19 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Fabien COELHO escribió: > >> Note that this is really a POC. How to derive a file is under >> discussion: it has been suggested that the unix shell approach would >> not work on Windows. I've suggested perl or python (which version?) >> but I'm not s

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-07-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Fabien COELHO escribió: > Note that this is really a POC. How to derive a file is under > discussion: it has been suggested that the unix shell approach would > not work on Windows. I've suggested perl or python (which version?) > but I'm not sure that it is okay either. The other option, suggest

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-07-11 Thread Fabien COELHO
While applying latest version of the patch (regress-big-v4.patch) on latest PostgreSQL version i encountered following errors: [...] Is that a problem ? Yes and no:-) My understanding is that there is a conflict because of commits between this patch and head: a file that this patch delet

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-07-11 Thread Samrat Revagade
Hi Fabien, While applying latest version of the patch (regress-big-v4.patch) on latest PostgreSQL version i encountered following errors: a) Using git: $git apply --index regress-big-v4.patch regress-big-v4.patch:10: trailing whitespace. $(srcdir)/parallel_schedule $(srcdir)/parallel_big_sche

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-07-04 Thread Fabien COELHO
+serial_%: parallel_% + echo "# this file is generated automatically, do not edit!" > $@ + egrep '^(test|ignore):' $< | \ + while read op list ; do \ + for test in $$list ; do \ + echo "$$op $$test" ; \ + done ; \ + done >> $@ + This won't work

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-07-03 Thread Andres Freund
On 2013-07-03 21:07:03 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > >>Here is a v2 which is more likely to work under VPATH. > > Here is a POC v4 which relies on multiple --schedule instead of creating > concatenated schedule files. > > -- > Fabien. > diff --git a/src/test/regress/GNUmakefile b/src/test/re

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-07-03 Thread Fabien COELHO
Here is a v2 which is more likely to work under VPATH. Here is a POC v4 which relies on multiple --schedule instead of creating concatenated schedule files. -- Fabien.diff --git a/src/test/regress/GNUmakefile b/src/test/regress/GNUmakefile index d5935b6..8a39f7d 100644 --- a/src/test/regres

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-07-01 Thread Fabien COELHO
While testing patch, I found that make installcheck breaks with your patch and gives following error: Indeed, I did not put the dependency for that target, I really tested "check" & "bigcheck". The attached patch adds the needed dependency for installcheck, and I could run it. I checked that

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-07-01 Thread Samrat Revagade
Hi Fabien, On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > - I do not understand why the makefile specifies $(srcdir) before >>>local files in some places. >>> >> >> For VPATH builds :-) >> > > Here is a v2 which is more likely to work under VPATH. I really appreciate your effo

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-06-30 Thread Fabien COELHO
- I do not understand why the makefile specifies $(srcdir) before local files in some places. For VPATH builds :-) Here is a v2 which is more likely to work under VPATH. -- Fabien.diff --git a/src/test/regress/GNUmakefile b/src/test/regress/GNUmakefile index 7309b00..5a6d0f9 100644 ---

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-06-30 Thread Fabien COELHO
Note about the POC patch limitations/questions: - is deriving a schedule with a piece of shell okay? or should perl/python/whatever scripting be better? I would think all we need are the results, i.e. the schedule files, plus some Makefile entries for them. You can replicate data, but

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-06-30 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 06/30/2013 02:54 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: Note about the POC patch limitations/questions: - is deriving a schedule with a piece of shell okay? or should perl/python/whatever scripting be better? I would think all we need are the results, i.e. the schedule files, plus some Makefile e

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-06-30 Thread Fabien COELHO
Note about the POC patch limitations/questions: - is deriving a schedule with a piece of shell okay? or should perl/python/whatever scripting be better? - the big_schedule is assumed "sequential", i.e. one test per line. maybe it could/should be parallel? - I'm not sure of the "parall

[HACKERS] [PATCH] big test separation POC

2013-06-28 Thread Fabien COELHO
Dear hackers, Per various discussion about the potential impact of Robins non regression tests, here is a poc patch to separate big tests from others. "paralle_schedule" holds usual tests, "big_schedule" holds big tests. The makefile derives serial_schedule, parallel_big_schedule and serial