On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:42 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm working on rebasing [1], my patch to make relation extension scale > better. > > As part of that I'd like to add tests for relation extension. To be able to > test the bulk write strategy path, we need to have a few backends concurrently > load > 16MB files. > > It seems pretty clear that doing that on all buildfarm machines wouldn't be > nice / welcome. And it also seems likely that this won't be the last case > where that'd be useful. > > So I'd like to add a 'large' class to PG_TEST_EXTRA, that we can use in tests > that we only want to execute on machines with sufficient resources. >
Oh, I was been thinking about a similar topic recently, but I was unaware of PG_TEST_EXTRA [1] I've observed suggested test cases get rejected as being overkill, or because they would add precious seconds to the test execution. OTOH, I felt such tests would still help gain some additional percentages from the "code coverage" stats. The kind of tests I am thinking of don't necessarily need a huge disk/CPU - but they just take longer to run than anyone has wanted to burden the build-farm with. ~ Sorry for the thread interruption -- but I thought this might be the right place to ask: What is the recommended way to deal with such tests intended primarily for better code coverage? I didn't see anything that looked pre-built for 'coverage'. Did I miss something, or is it a case of just invent-your-own extra tests/values for your own ad-hoc requirements? e.g. make check EXTRA_TESTS=extra_regress_for_coverage make check-world PG_TEST_EXTRA='extra_tap_tests_for_coverage' Thanks! ------ [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/regress-run.html Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia