On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 19:03, Yura Sokolov <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> Perhaps there is need for flag "heavy asserts". Or option "--enable-cassert=heavy". Then USE_ASSERT_CHECKING could be
definedto integer 1 or 2 depending on "heaviness" of enabled checks.
I'd rather explore all other options before we went and did something
like that. The reason I feel this way is; a couple of jobs ago, I
worked on a project that had quite a large test suite. In order to
run the tests on a typical dev machine took about 16 hours. When
writing new tests, nobody really ever gave much thought to how long
tests would take to run. The time it took had already grown to
something much longer than was practical to run before a commit.
Instead, we had a test farm. We'd commit to master (yuck) and the test
farm would run the tests. Unfortunately, the farm was not big enough
to run every test on every commit, so if it encountered a test failure
(as it commonly did) it tried to bisect and find the first breaking
commit for that test then alert the person (probably the next day).
bisecting works out pretty badly when someone commits a build breaking
commit.
Now that I work on PostgreSQL, I very much like the fact that I can
run make check-world -j and see very quickly that no tests fail. I'd
rather not have something like heavy asserts as I believe it would
just become a dumping ground for badly thought through Asserts that
most likely could be done in some better way that didn't require so
much effort. (I'll put mine in that category) It might not take long
before most committers opted to run make check-world without the heavy
asserts because it became just too slow. When that happens, it means
the buildfarm is left to catch these errors and most likely the
feedback will take much longer to get back to the committer due to the
animals running these flags also having to churn through the slow
tests.
So, I'm -1 for "heavy asserts".
David
