On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 4:29 PM Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 12:51 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I do not think the answer to this is to nag the respective animal > > owners to raise PG_TEST_TIMEOUT_DEFAULT. IMV this test is simply > > not worth the cycles it takes, at least not for these machines. > > Can't we just move it to PG_TEST_EXTRA? Alongside the existing > "xid_wraparound" test? > > We didn't even have basic coverage of multi-pass VACUUMs before now. > This new test added that coverage. I think that it will pull its > weight.
Andres has suggested in the past that we allow maintenance_work_mem be set to a lower value or introduce some kind of development GUC so that we can more easily test multiple pass index vacuuming. Do you think this would be worth it? - Melanie
