Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA
Date
Msg-id 20230213190658.vzdhu2rpypt7wx5v@awork3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA
List pgsql-hackers
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-in, so I don't think we need to
gate it further.

Maybe the pgbench tests?

I guess there's an argument to be made that we should use this for e.g.
002_pg_upgrade.pl or 027_stream_regress.pl - but I think both of these test
pretty fundamental behaviour like WAL replay, which is unfortunately is pretty
easy to break, so I'd be hesitant.

I guess we could stop running the full regression tests in 002_pg_upgrade.pl
if !large?

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA