From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: regresssion script hole |
Date: | 2006-06-18 22:03:13 |
Message-ID: | 4495CDA1.3000802@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>The problem is that if the postmaster takes more than 60 seconds to
>>start listening (as is apparently happening on spoonbill - don't yet
>>know why) this code falls through.
>>
>>
>
>If the postmaster takes that long to start listening, I'd say we need to
>fix the postmaster not pg_regress.
>
>
>
We need both, I think. I am still trying to find out why it's taking so
long. This is on the 8.0 branch, though. Later branches seem to be working.
>>I'm inclined to run the psql test one more time to make sure we can
>>actually connect, and if not then fail at this point.
>>
>>
>
>How does that differ from just iterating the loop one more time?
>
>
There is no guarantee that at the end of the loop we have connected
successfully to postgres.
I will post a patch that shows what I suggest.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-18 22:47:38 | Re: regresssion script hole |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-18 21:39:01 | Re: regresssion script hole |