Re: [HACKERS] separate serial_schedule useful?

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

Sorry, my bad. I wasn't aware of this rule. I should have looked at
the beginning of the file for any rules.

>>> There's no reason why pg_regress couldn't have a
>>> --bail-if-group-size-exceeds=N argument, or why we couldn't have a
>>> separate Perl script to validate the schedule file as part of the
>>> build process.
>
>> I'd go for the former approach; seems like less new code and fewer cycles
>> used to enforce the rule.
>
> Concretely, how about the attached?  (Obviously we'd have to fix
> parallel_schedule before committing this.)
>

Thanks, this will help. May be we should set default to 20 instead of unlimited.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers