On 2017-05-01 08:46:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:34:58PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > >> ... I was wondering about adding > >> a loop that simply runs for like 30s and then quits or such, but who > >> knows. > > > If the probabilistic test catches the bug even 5% of the time in typical > > configurations, the buildfarm will rapidly identify any regression. I'd > > choose a 7s test that detects the bug 5% of the time over a 30s test that > > detects it 99% of the time. (When I wrote src/bin/pgbench/t/001_pgbench.pl > > for a probabilistic bug, I sized that test to finish in 1s and catch its bug > > half the time. In its case, only two buildfarm members were able to > > demonstrate the original bug, so 5% detection would have been too low.) > > 30sec is kind of a big lump from a buildfarm standpoint, especially if > you mean "it runs for 30s on my honkin' fast workstation". I'm fine > with individual tests that run for ~ 1sec.
I was more thinking of pgench -T$XX, rather than constant number of iterations. I currently can reproduce the issues within like 3-4 minutes, so 5s is probably not quite sufficient to get decent coverage. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers