Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2017-05-01 08:46:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. Adding a five-minute pgbench run to the buildfarm sequence is definitely going to get you ridden out of town on a rail. But quite aside from the question of whether we can afford the cycles, it seems like the wrong approach. IMO the buildfarm is mainly for verifying portability, not for trying to prove that race-like conditions don't exist. In most situations we're going out of our way to ensure reproduceability of tests we add to the buildfarm sequence; but it seems like this is looking for irreproducible results. 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