Re: Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions
Date
Msg-id 20141119182315.GK17845@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: Increasing test coverage of WAL redo functions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2014-11-19 19:59:33 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 11/19/2014 05:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >On 2014-11-19 11:54:47 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >>>  Schema |       Name       | Type  | Owner  |  Size   | Description
> >>>--------+------------------+-------+--------+---------+-------------
> >>>  public | btree_tall_tbl   | table | heikki | 24 kB   |
> >>>  public | btree_test_tbl   | table | heikki | 392 kB  |
> >>>  public | gin_test_tbl     | table | heikki | 588 MB  |
> >>>  public | gist_point_tbl   | table | heikki | 1056 kB |
> >>>  public | spgist_point_tbl | table | heikki | 1056 kB |
> >>>  public | spgist_text_tbl  | table | heikki | 1472 kB |
> >>>(6 rows)
> >>
> >>I think it's good to have these tests, though Tom was complaining
> >>earlier about the size of the regression test database.  Would it work
> >>to have this in a separate test suite, like the numeric_big stuff?
> >>We can have it run optionally, and perhaps set up a few buildfarm
> >>members to exercise them on a regular basis.
> >
> >I think the tests except the gin one are resonably sized - I'd much
> >rather run them all the time. We shouldn't make the buildfarm
> >configuration unnecessarily complex.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Committed, except for the large GIN test. I kept a smaller version of the
> GIN test, which exercises vacuum and page deletion, but not the internal
> page split. I also slimmed down the other tests down a little bit.
> 
> This grew "pg_dumpall | wc -c" from 5505689 to 6926066 bytes. The size of
> the regression database grew, according to psql's "\l+" command grew from 45
> MB to 57 MB. The amount of WAL generated by "make installcheck" grew from 75
> MB to 104 MB.

Why not just drop some of these slightly larger tables after the test?
Then the maximum size of the database/the size of the dump doesn't
increase as much? I don't think there's these are that interesting to
look into after the test has finished.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Doing better at HINTing an appropriate column within errorMissingColumn()
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Doing better at HINTing an appropriate column within errorMissingColumn()