On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:49 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 8:44 PM Önder Kalacı <onderkalaci@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I felt that once you remove the create publication/subscription/wait
> >> for sync steps, the test execution might become faster and save some
> >> time in the local execution, cfbot and the various machines in
> >> buildfarm. If the execution time will not reduce, then no need to
> >> change.
> >>
> >
> > So, as I noted earlier, there are different schemas. As far as I count, there are at least
> > 7 different table definitions. I think all tables having the same name are maybe confusing?
> >
> > Even if I try to group the same table definitions, and avoid create publication/subscription/wait
> > for sync steps, the total execution time of the test drops only ~5%. As far as I test, that does not
> > seem to be the bottleneck for the tests.
> >
> > Well, I'm really not sure if it is really worth doing that. I think having each test independent of each
> > other is really much easier to follow.
> >
>
> This new test takes ~9s on my machine whereas most other tests in
> subscription/t take roughly 2-5s. I feel we should try to reduce the
> test timing without sacrificing much of the functionality or code
> coverage. I think if possible we should try to reduce setup/teardown
> cost for each separate test by combining them where possible. I have a
> few comments on tests which also might help to optimize these tests.
>
To avoid culling useful tests just because they take too long to run I
have often thought we should separate some of the useful (but costly)
subscription tests from the mainstream other tests. Then they won't
cost any extra time for the build-farm, but at least we can still run
them on-demand using PG_TEST_EXTRA [1] approach if we really want to.
------
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/regress-run.html
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Austrlia
