Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 11:00:27 -0700
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Fujii Masao <fujii@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Make VACUUM accept 1 and 0 as a boolean value.
Message-ID: <20190520180027.zyxosts5yrf2i7mh@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <E1hSk9C-0002hH-Vp@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <26460.1558366996@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAHGQGwEvM9X66Ni4OKv4dOQQddw7z=cNUxnG=wEv84sqj9t_ig@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190520163652.l7ibpe52pbq6lecc@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CAHGQGwEixkoMJy4JHUvBdM0MacR1_h=wmE43KTOTErpA2Z5P0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190520164908.t653bdbfjcn3d35p@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <23559.1558374415@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <23559.1558374415@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 2019-05-20 13:46:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2019-05-21 01:43:35 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> >> Thanks for the commit! And sorry, make check-world took very long time
> >> and has just finished right now in my env... I'd like to confirm that
> >> make check-world reports no error just in case.
> 
> > make -j16 -s && make -Otarget -j10 -s check-world && echo success || echo fail
> 
> > makes that much more bearable, by running the slow TAP tests in
> > parallel. Doesn't work < 10 though.

Kinda wonder whether we should backpatch the necessary changes to make
-j .. check work back to 9.4.


> Yeah, parallelization makes all the difference in the world, assuming
> you have a multi-core machine.  You can parallelize within TAP suites
> too.  I use
> 
> make -s check-world -j4 PROVE_FLAGS='-j4 --quiet --nocolor --nocount'
> 
> on an 8-core machine, and get typical runtimes under 2m30s.

FWIW, I found that parallelizing on the top-level to get better
performance than within prove. The system load is more predicatable.


> If there were a way to get prove to be absolutely quiet (its --quiet is
> a joke unfortunately), I'd lobby for a switch to make pg_regress quiet
> too.  The amount of useless noise this recipe generates is annoying,
> and tends to make it hard to find where the actual error is when
> there is one.

Indeed. Couldn't we just invent that on our end? I.e. in our prove
invocation, just redirect the output?

The most annoying noise imo is the pg_upgrade test. The set -x and the
fact that it resets MAKEFLAGS makes that pretty annoying.

Greetings,

Andres Freund