Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nF57R-0007DX-15 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 02:11:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nF57O-0002t1-Au for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 02:11:34 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nF57O-0002ss-1g for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 02:11:34 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nF57K-0005YQ-I7 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2022 02:11:32 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 2122BOTj1046819; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 21:11:24 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Thomas Munro cc: Andres Freund , Michael Paquier , Andrew Dunstan , Anastasia Lubennikova , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: A test for replay of regression tests In-reply-to: References: <20220114234947.av4kkhuj7netsy5r@alap3.anarazel.de> <20220121194827.7eau4ulhrfol3npd@alap3.anarazel.de> <20220202011402.e7t3hu3jusalr32h@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro message dated "Wed, 02 Feb 2022 14:35:02 +1300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1046817.1643767884.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 21:11:24 -0500 Message-ID: <1046818.1643767884@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Thomas Munro writes: > It looks like it's processing statements fairly consistently slowly > through the whole period. Each non-trivial statement takes a bit > under ~10ms, so it would make sense if by the time we've processed > ~2.5k lines we've clocked up 30 seconds and a VACUUM replay whacks us. This test is set up to time out after 30 seconds? We've long had an unofficial baseline that no timeouts under 180 seconds should be used in the buildfarm. regards, tom lane