On sön, 2011-11-27 at 18:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > I've committed it now, and some buildfarm members are failing with lack
> > of shared memory, semaphores, or disk space. Don't know what to do with
> > that or why so many are failing like that. We could create a way to
> > omit the test if it becomes a problem.
> I believe the issue is that those BF members have kernel settings that
> only support running one postmaster at a time. The way you've got this
> set up, it launches a new private postmaster during a make installcheck;
> which is not only problematic from a resource consumption standpoint,
> but seems to me to violate the spirit of make installcheck, because
> what it's testing is not the installed postmaster but a local instance.
> Can you confine the test to only occur in "make check" mode, not "make
> installcheck", please?
FWIW, the original definition of installcheck is that it tests the
already installed programs, which is what this does (did). But I agree
that the difference is minimal in this case.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-12-05 19:47:30|
|Subject: Re: hiding variable-length fields from Form_pg_* structs |
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2011-12-05 19:42:19|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Caching for stable expressions with constant