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
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 |