Re: Cygwin test for current libpq sources?

Tom,

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 07:23:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jason Tishler <jason(at)tishler(dot)net> writes:
> > Can the above mentioned changes be the cause of the increased
> > connection refused failures?
>
> Hmm. I do not think so. The worrisome possibility is that our earlier
> changes that make the postmaster fork() first and authenticate later
> might be hurting performance, rather than helping it, at least on
> Windows. But it's difficult to see why. Successful connections must
> do a fork() sooner or later, so how could there be any net loss of
> performance?

From the PostgreSQL side, I don't see how either. But, maybe the latest
Cygwin is slower which is making the backend slower? Another possibility,
is that the Cygwin DLL that I'm using has vfork turned on, so maybe the
tests (i.e., the frontends) are being started faster than before?

I suggest that Terry Carlin rerun his benchmark suite on PostgreSQL
CVS running under Cygwin's most recent snapshot to see if he is getting
connection refused failures too.

> What authentication protocol are you using in this test?

I presume nothing (i.e., trust) or whatever is the default. Remember,
I'm just doing a "make check".

> > Additionally, I had (test) misc failures, but I believe that is due to the
> > other failures? Is that assessment correct?
>
> Quite a few of the tests are dependent on data inserted by earlier
> tests, so I wouldn't worry too much about failures occurring after the
> first connection-refused. You could look at the detail diffs and verify
> that they look like missing data or missing tables.

The above describes what I'm seeing in the diffs so I will ignore the
misc failures.

Thanks,
Jason