On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:47:49PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 13 August 2015 at 00:31, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > We've talked about having some sort of second rank of tests that > > > people wouldn't necessarily run before committing, and that would > > > be allowed to eat more time than the core regression tests would. > > > I think that might be a valuable direction to pursue if people start > > > submitting very bulky tests. > > > > Maybe. Adding a whole new test suite is significantly more > > administratively complex, because the BF client has to get updated to > > run it. And if expected outputs in that test suite change very often > > at all, then committers will have to run it before committing anyway. > > > > The value of a core regression suite that takes less time to run has > > to be weighed against the possibility that a better core regression > > suite might cause us to find more bugs before committing. That could > > easily be worth the price in runtime. > > Seems like a simple fix. We maintain all regression tests in full, but keep > slow tests in separate files accessed only by a different schedule. > > make check == fast-parallel_schedule > make check-full == parallel_schedule
+1 for a split, though I would do "make quickcheck" and "make check". Using fewer tests should be a conscious decision, and "check" is the widely-known Makefile target. In particular, non-hackers building production binaries need the thorough test battery. (As a bonus, the buildfarm wouldn't miss a beat.) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
