On 07/02/2013 10:17 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
Reviewing this thread, I think that the following people are in favor
of adding the tests to the existing schedule: Josh Berkus, Stephen
Frost, Fabien Coelho, Dann Corbit, and Jeff Janes. And I think that
the following people are in favor of a new schedule: Andres Freund,
Andrew Dunstan, David Fetter, and possibly Alvaro Herrera. I believe
Tom Lane has also expressed objections, though not on this thread.
So I think the first question we need to answer is: Should we just
reject Robins' patches en masse? If we do that, then the rest of this
is moot. If we don't do that, then the second question is whether we
should try to introduce a new schedule, and if so, whether we should
split out that new schedule before or after committing these patches
as they stand.
Here are my opinions, for what they are worth. First, I think that
rejecting these new tests is a bad idea, although I've looked them
over a bit and I think there might be individual things we might want
to take out. Second, I think that creating a new schedule is likely
to cost developers more time than it saves them. Sure, you'll be able
to run the tests slightly faster, but when you commit something, break
the buildfarm (which does run those tests), and then have to go back
and fix the tests (or your patch), you'll waste more time doing that
than you saved by avoiding those few extra seconds of runtime. Third,
I think if we do want to create a new schedule, it makes more sense to
commit the tests first and then split out the new schedule according
to some criteria that we devise. There should be a principled reason
for putting tests in one schedule or the other; "all the tests that
Robins Tharakan wrote" is not a good filter criteria.
I'm willing to put effort into going through these patches and
figuring out which parts are worth committing, and commit them.
However, I don't want to (and should not) do that if the consensus is
to reject the patches altogether; or if people are not OK with the
approach proposed above, namely, commit it first and then, if it
causes problems, decide how to fix it. Please help me understand what
the way forward is for this patch set.
I think I'm probably a bit misrepresented here. The question of what
tests we have is distinct from the question of what schedule(s) they are
in. We already have tests that are in NO schedule, IIRC. What is more,
it's entirely possibly to invoke pg_regress with multiple --schedule
arguments, so we could, for example, have a makefile target that would
run both the check and some other schedule of longer running tests.
So my $0.02 says you should assess these tests on their own merits, and
we can debate the schedule arrangements later.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
