On 5/1/17 13:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2017-05-01 12:32:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> But quite aside from the question of whether we can afford the cycles,
>>> it seems like the wrong approach. IMO the buildfarm is mainly for
>>> verifying portability, not for trying to prove that race-like
>>> conditions don't exist. In most situations we're going out of our way
>>> to ensure reproduceability of tests we add to the buildfarm sequence;
>>> but it seems like this is looking for irreproducible results.
>
>> Yea, I wondered about that upthread as well. But the tests are quite
>> useful nonetheless. Wonder about adding them simply as a separate
>> target.
>
> I have no objection to adding more tests as a non-default target.
Well, the problem with nondefault targets is that they are hard to find
if you don't know them, and then they will rot.
Sure, we need a way to distinguish different classes of tests, but lets
think about the bigger scheme, too. Ideas welcome.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
