Re: Idea for improving buildfarm robustness

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> >> I wouldn't want to do this every time through the postmaster's main loop,
> >> but we could do this once an hour for no added cost by adding the check
> >> where it does TouchSocketLockFiles; or once every few minutes if we
> >> carried a separate variable like last_touch_time. Once an hour would be
> >> plenty to fix the buildfarm's problem, I should think.
>
> > I have a bad (?) habit of doing exactly this during development and
> > would really like it to be a bit more often than once/hour, unless
> > there's a particular problem with that.
>
> Yeah, Josh mentioned the same. It would only take another three or four
> lines of code to decouple it from TouchSocketLockFiles, and then it's
> just a question of how much are you worried about the performance cost of
> additional file-open attempts. I think either one-minute or five-minute
> intervals would be pretty defensible.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it doesn't strike me as a terribly
expensive operation, and once a minute would work out quite well for my
needs, at least.

Running for long after pg_control has disappeared doesn't strike me as a
great idea anyway..

Thanks!

Stephen