On 5/1/17 13:02, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> On 2017-05-01 12:32:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> But quite aside from the question of whether we can afford the cycles, >>> it seems like the wrong approach. IMO the buildfarm is mainly for >>> verifying portability, not for trying to prove that race-like >>> conditions don't exist. In most situations we're going out of our way >>> to ensure reproduceability of tests we add to the buildfarm sequence; >>> but it seems like this is looking for irreproducible results. > >> Yea, I wondered about that upthread as well. But the tests are quite >> useful nonetheless. Wonder about adding them simply as a separate >> target. > > I have no objection to adding more tests as a non-default target.
Well, the problem with nondefault targets is that they are hard to find if you don't know them, and then they will rot. Sure, we need a way to distinguish different classes of tests, but lets think about the bigger scheme, too. Ideas welcome. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
