> I see two problems with this report: > 1. it creates a new installation for each run,
Yes, I'm running "make check" > 2. it only uses the serial schedule. Um, no: parallel group (19 tests): limit prepare copy2 plancache xml returning conversion rowtypes largeobject temp truncate polymorphism with without_oid sequence domain rangefuncs alter_table plpgsql Out of curiosity, I tried a serial run (MAX_CONNECTIONS=1), which took about 39s (with patches). > I care more about the parallel schedule than the serial one, because > since it obviously runs in less time, then I can run it often and not > worry about how long it takes. On the other hand, the cost of the extra > initdb obviously means that the percentage is a bit lower than if you > were to compare test run time without considering the initdb step. Possibly, but I know I run "make check" not "make installcheck" when I'm testing new code. And the buildfarm, afaik, runs "make check". And, for that matter, who the heck cares? The important thing is that "make check" still runs in < 30 seconds on a standard laptop (an ultraportable, even), so it's not holding up a change-test-change-test cycle. If you were looking to prove something else, then go for it. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
