Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: beta3 Solaris 7 (SPARC) port report [ Was: Looking for . . . ]

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: beta3 Solaris 7 (SPARC) port report [ Was: Looking for . . . ]
Date: 2001-01-26 03:13:29
Message-ID: 28277.980478809@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de> writes:
> I just did that and ran make check 4 times. 3 times went completely
> smoothly, once I had random fail. This is the same behaviour that I saw
> when running make installcheck (76 successful most of the time,
> sometimes you get 75 out of 76 with random being the one that fails).

Er, you do realize that the random test is *supposed* to fail every so
often?  (Else it'd not be random...)  See the pages on interpreting
regression test results in the admin guide.

What troubles me is the nonrepeatable failures you saw on other tests.
As Peter says, if "make installcheck" (serial tests) is perfectly solid
and "make check" (parallel tests) is not, that suggests some kind of
interprocess locking problem.  But we haven't heard about any such issue
on Solaris.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2001-01-26 04:09:11
Subject: Re: Open 7.1 items
Previous:From: Philip WarnerDate: 2001-01-26 03:09:05
Subject: Re: pg_dump issues

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-26 04:07:19
Subject: Re: Performance: Unix sockets vs. TCP/IP sockets
Previous:From: KyleDate: 2001-01-26 02:45:59
Subject: DBD::Pg using int2 / smallint

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group