Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-11-14 13:37:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As for the SKIP_LOCKED tests in vacuum.sql, what I now propose is that
>> we just remove them. I do not see that they're offering any coverage
>> that's not completely redundant with this isolation test. We don't
>> need to spend cycles every day on that.
> -0 on that, I'd rather just put a autovacuum_enabled = false for
> them. They're quick enough, and it's nice to have decent coverage of
> various options within the plain regression tests when possible.
If we're going to keep them in vacuum.sql, we should use the
client_min_messages fix there, as that's a full solution not just
reducing the window. But I don't agree that these tests are worth
the cycles, given the coverage elsewhere. The probability of breaking
this option is just not high enough to justify core-regression-test
coverage.
regards, tom lane
