On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 2:20 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > However, eyeing the calendar, I think the only options that are likely > to be stabilizable before feature freeze are (1a) run the test scripts > serially for test_plan_advice or (3a) throw test_plan_advice away. > I know you don't want to do (3a) and I understand why not. How much > will (1a) slow things down?
I don't know. For me, the speed of the regression tests is rarely a bottleneck, and they run on my machine in about 12 seconds. But on slow buildfarm machines, I'm guessing it's going to extend the runtime significantly. But I also feel like if we've only seen one buildfarm failure since the last round of stabilization, it might not be a catastrophe if nothing further is done before feature freeze. In fact, I think it might be *good*. Given the apparently-low failure rate that we now have, it feels to me like we might want to run like this for a month or even or two or three to get a clearer feeling for whether the failure you saw is the only one or whether, perhaps, there are others. Or even just how often this one happens. I mean, I'm also not that opposed to having it made serial now if you really think that's better. But what concerns me is I feel like we might inconvenience a lot of people who really care about the tests running fast while at the same time eliminating our ability to gather any more information about the problem. I mean, there is possibly an argument that we don't really need to gather any more information about the problem; it does seem like we understand what is going on here, and if we had a great, simple fix I would probably just apply it and be done with it. But I also don't quite understand why you're in such a rush. If we still feel like running the tests serially is the best solution in a month, can't we just do it then? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
