Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] Version 4.10 of buildfarm client released.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] Version 4.10 of buildfarm client released.
Date: 2013-01-11 18:39:09
Message-ID: 13592.1357929549@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: buildfarm-members pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> writes:
> There was a stray postgres instance running on the box, which I killed:

FWIW, we've seen an awful lot of persistent buildfarm failures that
seemed to be due to port conflicts with leftover postmasters. I think
the buildfarm script needs to try harder to ensure that it's killed
everything after a run. No good ideas how to go about that exactly.
You could look through "ps" output for postmasters, but what if there's
a regular Postgres installation on the same box? Can we just document
that the buildfarm had better not be run as "postgres"? (If so, its
attempt to kill an unowned postmaster would fail anyway; else we need
a reliable way to tell which ones to kill.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse buildfarm-members by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2013-01-11 20:05:16 Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] Version 4.10 of buildfarm client released.
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2013-01-11 16:56:44 Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] Version 4.10 of buildfarm client released.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2013-01-11 18:53:47 Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-01-11 18:21:28 Re: I s this a bug of spgist index in a heavy write condition?