From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | decibel(at)decibel(dot)org, mail(at)joeconway(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Problem with dblink regression test |
Date: | 2005-06-22 04:35:35 |
Message-ID: | 23081.1119414935@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> If this diagnosis were correct, wouldn't every buildfarm member be failing
> at the ContribCheck stage (if they get that far)?
I am way too tired right now to run down the details, but there is a
series of possibilities for the port libpq will try to connect to,
and I think what is happening is that one of the lower-priority choices
is causing it to connect to an existing installed postmaster instead of
the intended test installation. Anyone want to do the legwork to
explain this clearly?
> Also, while the PGPORT=nnnn trick looks sort of OK, we need to check it will
> work on Windows - I am far from sure it will.
Yeah, the Windows case has its own all-new set of gotchas ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-06-22 05:12:49 | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-22 04:27:02 | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-06-22 05:12:49 | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-22 04:27:02 | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |