Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing
Date: 2011-11-27 23:17:49
Message-ID: 20327.1322435869@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2011-11-27 23:19:46 Re: logging in high performance systems.
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-11-27 23:03:38 Re: pgsql: Move pg_dump memory routines into pg_dumpmem.c/h and restore com