Greetings, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2023-02-13 13:45:41 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Are there existing tests that we should add into that set that you're > > thinking of..? I've been working with the Kerberos tests and that's > > definitely one that seems to fit this description... > > I think the kerberos tests are already opt-in, so I don't think we need to > gate it further.
I'd like to lump them in with a bunch of other tests though, to give it more chance to run.. My issue currently is that they're *too* gated. > Maybe the pgbench tests? Sure. > I guess there's an argument to be made that we should use this for e.g. > 002_pg_upgrade.pl or 027_stream_regress.pl - but I think both of these test > pretty fundamental behaviour like WAL replay, which is unfortunately is pretty > easy to break, so I'd be hesitant. Hm. If you aren't playing with that part of the code though, maybe it'd be nice to not run them. The pg_dump tests might also make sense to segregate out as they can add up to be a lot, and there's more that we could and probably should be doing there. > I guess we could stop running the full regression tests in 002_pg_upgrade.pl > if !large? Perhaps... but then what are we testing? Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
