From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: buildfarm animals and 'snapshot too old' |
Date: | 2014-05-19 23:58:56 |
Message-ID: | 537A9AC0.2080507@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/19/2014 05:37 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> IMHO the problem is that d6a97674 was the last revision in the
> REL9_3_STABLE branch when the test started (00:14), but at 06:06
> 777d07d7 got committed. So the check at the end failed, because the
> tested revision was suddenly ~2 days over the limit.
>
> This seems wrong to me, because even a very fast test including the
> commit (e.g. starting at 06:00, finishing at 06:10) would fail exactly
> like this.
>
> This is more probable on the old stable branches, because the commits
> are not that frequent (on HEAD the commits are usually less than a few
> hours apart, so the new one won't obsolete the previous one). It's also
> made more likely to hit by the long runtime, because it increases the
> probability something will be committed into the branch. And it also
> makes it more "expensive" because it effectively throws all the cpu time
> to /dev/null.
>
>
Well, the original code was put in for a reason, presumably that we were
getting some stale data and wanted to exclude it. So I'm unwilling to
throw it out altogether. If someone can propose a reasonable sanity
check then I'm prepared to implement it.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2014-05-20 00:50:19 | Negative imact of maintenance_work_mem to GIN size |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-19 22:50:34 | Re: buildfarm: strange OOM failures on markhor (running CLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSIVELY) |