Jason Tishler <Jason(dot)Tishler(at)dothill(dot)com> writes:
> parallel group (7 tests): create_aggregate create_operator inherit triggers constraints create_misc create_index
> constraints ... FAILED
> triggers ... FAILED
> create_misc ... FAILED
> create_aggregate ... ok
Can't tell much from this. What are the detail diffs (regression.diffs file?)
> 2. I am unable to successfully run the regression tests on a NT 4.0 SP5
> machine with only 64 MB of physical memory and about 175 MB of swap space.
> Other than lacking RAM and swap space, this machine is the "same" as other
> NT/2000 machines which can successfully run the regression tests.
> The tests usually hang during the "parallel group (18 tests)" test
> right after numerology. By "hang," I mean that the original postmaster
> is still running, but there are no postmaster children, and there are
> some number of psql processes hanging around.
Hm. You will have 18 backends firing up there, plus 18 psqls to drive
'em, and probably 18 shell subprocesses parenting the psqls. I wouldn't
be too surprised at running out of memory --- but one would like to
expect a more graceful failure than just hanging. What if anything
shows up in the postmaster log?
> 3. Once (or twice), I noticed that the plpgsql test failed.
> Unfortunately, I didn't capture the precise output but I think that
> postmaster was complaining about being unable to
> mv <somepath>/pg_internal.init.<somepid> <somepath>/pg_internal.init
> due to a permissions problem. Sorry, for being vague...
Hm. The first backend to fire up after a vacuum will try to rebuild
pg_internal.init, and then move it into place with
* And rename the temp file to its final name, deleting any
* previously-existing init file.
if (rename(tempfilename, finalfilename) < 0)
elog(NOTICE, "Cannot rename init file %s to %s: %m\n\tContinuing anyway, but there's something wrong.", tempfilename, finalfilename);
In a parallel test it's possible that several backends would try to do
this at about the same time, but that should be OK; we should end up
with just one file from the last-to-finish backend. I think you have
found another Cygwin bug :-(
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-ports by date
|Next:||From: Jason Tishler||Date: 2001-01-16 14:35:14|
|Subject: Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL CVS Patch|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-01-16 05:04:57|
|Subject: Re: Cygwin PostgreSQL CVS Patch |