On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 3:49 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 8:44 PM Önder Kalacı <onderkal...@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