Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test
Date
Msg-id 18046.1510335449@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> OK, then so be it :)

> Thanks for the new version. This one, as well as the switch to
> psql_safe in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfduxgEYF_0BTs-mxGC4=w5sw8rnUbq9BSTp1Wq7=NwrWDA@mail.gmail.com
> are good for a committer lookup IMO.

The safe_psql change is a clear bug fix, so I've pushed it.

However, as far as adding the TAP test to the standard test suite
goes, I've got two complaints about this patch:

1. It doesn't (I think, can't test) do anything to run the test on
Windows.

2. The TAP test is enormously slower than the standard test.  On my
development workstation, "make installcheck" in contrib/bloom takes
about 0.5 sec; this patch increases that to 11.6 sec.  I'm not too
happy about that as a developer, and even less so as an owner of some
fairly slow buildfarm critters.  I'd say that this might be the
reason the TAP test wasn't part of the standard tests to begin with.

Is there anything we can do to cut the runtime of the TAP test to
the point where running it by default wouldn't be so painful?
        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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Add some const decorations to prototypes
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Fix bloom WAL tap test