From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Adding "large" to PG_TEST_EXTRA
In-reply-to: <20230213184202.n4itpnibcsfyk6nt@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <20230213184202.n4itpnibcsfyk6nt@awork3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Mon, 13 Feb 2023 10:42:02 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1350560.1676314499.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 13:54:59 -0500
Message-ID: <1350561.1676314499@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1350561.1676314499%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> As part of that I'd like to add tests for relation extension. To be able=
 to
> test the bulk write strategy path, we need to have a few backends concur=
rently
> load > 16MB files.
> It seems pretty clear that doing that on all buildfarm machines wouldn't=
 be
> nice / welcome. And it also seems likely that this won't be the last cas=
e
> where that'd be useful.
> So I'd like to add a 'large' class to PG_TEST_EXTRA, that we can use in =
tests
> that we only want to execute on machines with sufficient resources.

Makes sense.  I see that this approach would result in manual check-world
runs not running such tests by default either, which sounds right.

Bikeshedding a bit ... is "large" the right name?  It's not awful but
I wonder if there is a better one; it seems like this class could
eventually include tests that run a long time but don't necessarily
eat disk space.  "resource-intensive" is too long.

			regards, tom lane