Jason Tishler <jason(at)tishler(dot)net> writes:
> I just built the latest PostgreSQL CVS and ran it against essentially
> the latest Cygwin CVS. make check failed with many connection refused
> false positives. Previously, I would only get these occasionally. Recall
> that Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and 2000 Professional only have a backlog
> size of 5. Can the above mentioned changes be the cause of the increased
> connection refused failures?
Hmm. I do not think so. The worrisome possibility is that our earlier
changes that make the postmaster fork() first and authenticate later
might be hurting performance, rather than helping it, at least on
Windows. But it's difficult to see why. Successful connections must
do a fork() sooner or later, so how could there be any net loss of
What authentication protocol are you using in this test?
> Additionally, I had (test) misc failures, but I believe that is due to the
> other failures? Is that assessment correct?
Quite a few of the tests are dependent on data inserted by earlier
tests, so I wouldn't worry too much about failures occurring after the
first connection-refused. You could look at the detail diffs and verify
that they look like missing data or missing tables.
> With the serial schedule, all tests passed except for random. Normally,
> I wouldn't worry, but random failed every time I ran either version of
> the regression test except for once. Does this indicate a problem?
I doubt it.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-cygwin by date
|Next:||From: Jason Tishler||Date: 2001-08-17 01:28:39|
|Subject: Re: postgresql 7.1.2|
|Previous:||From: Scott McDaniel||Date: 2001-08-16 22:14:47|