Re: tap tests on older branches fail if concurrency is used

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tap tests on older branches fail if concurrency is used
Date: 2017-06-08 01:09:55
Message-ID: CAMsr+YFUCt_H+HO-fnaoJ1=q3ebQ8dq6dD4hbWSSoYz-qHA7Bg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7 June 2017 at 13:39, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>>> when using
>>> $ cat ~/.proverc
>>> -j9
>>> some tests fail for me in 9.4 and 9.5.
>>
>> Weren't there fixes specifically intended to make that safe, awhile ago?
>
> 60f826c has not been back-patched. While this would fix parallel runs
> with make's --jobs, PROVE_FLAGS="-j X" would still fail.

Ah, that's why I didn't find it.

I think applying Michael's patch makes sense now, and if we decide to
backpatch PostgresNode (and I get the time to do it) we can clobber
that fix quite happily with the full backport. Thanks Michael for the
workaround.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2017-06-08 01:10:36 Re: Notes on testing Postgres 10b1
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2017-06-08 01:08:10 Re: Use of snapshot in logical replication