On 07/08/2019 18:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Aug-07, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Something related I've been wondering about is whether we could
>> parallelize the isolation tests. A difficulty here is that the
>> slowest ones tend to also be timing-sensitive, such that running
>> them in parallel would increase the risk of failure. But we
>> could likely get at least some improvement.
>
> Yeah, there's some improvement to be had there. We've discussed it
> previously:
> https://postgr.es/m/20180124231006.z7spaz5gkzbdvob5@alvherre.pgsql
>
> I'm not really happy about this grouping if we mean we're restricted in
> how we can make tests run in parallel.
The elephant in the room is the 'timeouts' test, which takes about 40
seconds, out of a total runtime of 90 seconds. So we'd really want to
run that in parallel with everything else. Or split 'timeouts' into
multiple tests that could run in parallel. I don't think grouping the
rest of the tests differently will make much difference to how easy or
hard that is.
In any case, we can scramble the list again later, if that's needed for
running the tests in parallel, and we think it's worth it. Until then, a
more logical grouping and some comments would be nice.
- Heikki
