Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 6/19/16 5:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Depending on what the percentage actually is, maybe we could treat >> this like the "random" test, and allow a failure to be disregarded >> overall? But that doesn't seem very nice either, in view of our >> increasing reliance on automated testing. If "random" were failing >> 90% of the time on some buildfarm critters, that would probably >> indicate a real problem, but we'd likely not realize it for a long time.
> I think this test would only fail if it runs out of workers, and that > would only happen in an installcheck run against a server configured in > a nonstandard way or that is doing something else -- which doesn't > happen on the buildfarm. Um, if you're speaking of select_parallel, that already runs in parallel with two other regression tests, and there is no annotation in the parallel_schedule file suggesting that adding more scripts to that group would be bad. But yes, perhaps putting this test into its own standalone group would be enough of a fix. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers