| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Idea for improving buildfarm robustness |
| Date: | 2015-10-03 14:25:10 |
| Message-ID: | 6537.1443882310@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> BTW, my thought at the moment is to wait till after next week's releases
>> to push this in. I think it's probably solid, but it doesn't seem like
>> it's worth taking the risk of pushing shortly before a wrap date.
> That seems a wiser approach to me. Down to which version are you planning a
> backpatch? As this is aimed for the buildfarm stability with TAP stuff, 9.4?
What we'd discussed was applying this to all branches that contain the
5-second-timeout logic, which is everything back to 9.1. The branches
that have TAP tests have a wider cross-section for failure in the
buildfarm because more postmaster starts are involved, but all of them
are capable of getting burnt this way --- see shearwater's results for
instance.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-10-03 15:15:54 | Re: creating extension including dependencies |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-10-03 14:02:00 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |