| From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joshua Brindle <joshua(dot)brindle(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Joe Conway <joe(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Object Access Type hooks |
| Date: | 2022-04-04 17:44:25 |
| Message-ID: | 757EFDF9-FBE3-489C-8CC0-35FD874F7D9A@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Apr 4, 2022, at 10:41 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Is our CI setup failing to capture stderr from TAP tests??
I'm looking into the way our TAP test infrastructure assigns port numbers to nodes, and whether that is reasonable during parallel test runs with nodes stopping and starting again. On casual inspection, that doesn't seem ok, because the Cluster.pm logic to make sure nodes get unique ports doesn't seem to be thinking about other parallel tests running. It will notice if another node is already bound to the port, but if another node has been killed and not yet restarted, won't things go off the rails?
I'm writing a parallel test just for this. Will get back to you.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-04 17:51:13 | Re: New Object Access Type hooks |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-04 17:41:17 | Re: New Object Access Type hooks |