On 2013-06-28 14:46:10 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > How did you evaluate that coverage increased "greatly"? I am not > > generally against these tests but I'd be surprised if the overall test > > coverage improved noticeably by this. Which makes 10% runtime overhead > > pretty hefty if the goal is to actually achieve a high coverage. > > I was relying on Robins' numbers of coverage:
Those improvements rather likely end up being an improvement a good bit less than one percent for the whole binary. > If we someday add so many tests that "make check" takes over a minute on > a modern laptop, then maybe it'll be worth talking about splitting the > test suite into "regular" and "extended". However, it would require 15 > more patch sets the size of Robins' to get there, so I don't see that > it's worth the trouble any time soon. Was it actually an assert enabled build that you tested? We currently can run make check with stuff like CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS which finds bugs pretty regularly. If we achieve a high coverage we quite possibly can't anymore, at least not regularly. So I actually think having two modes makes sense. Then we could also link stuff like isolationtester automatically into the longer running mode... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, 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
