Re: Cirrus CI for macOS branches 16 and 15 broken

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cirrus CI for macOS branches 16 and 15 broken
Date: 2024-08-18 23:44:39
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+TfSujgWtZvgtinnAxeefbJc1FxjHcL8FbCkfvVAs9Nw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 10:55 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I still don't know what's happening. In case it helps someone else
> > see it, the error comes from "sudo port unsetrequested installed".
> > But in any case, switching to 2.10.1 seems to do the trick. See
> > attached.
>
> Interesting. Now that I've finished "sudo port upgrade outdated",
> my laptop is back to a state where unprivileged "port outdated"
> is successful.
>
> What this smells like is that MacPorts has to do some kind of database
> update as a result of its major version change, and there are code
> paths that are not expecting that to get invoked. It makes sense
> that unprivileged "port outdated" would fail to perform the database
> update, but not quite as much for "sudo port unsetrequested installed"
> to fail. That case seems like a MacPorts bug; maybe worth filing?

Huh. Right, interesting theory. OK, I'll push that patch to use
2.10.1 anyway, and report what we observed to see what they say.

It's funny that when I had an automatic "pick latest" thing, it broke
on their beta release, but when I pinned it to 2.9.3, it broke when
they made a new stable release anyway. A middle way would be to use a
pattern that skips alpha/beta/etc...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-08-18 23:50:11 Re: Cirrus CI for macOS branches 16 and 15 broken
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-08-18 23:40:59 Re: possible issue in postgres_fdw batching