From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgbf(at)twiska(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: "ago" times on buildfarm status page |
Date: | 2019-08-26 18:55:50 |
Message-ID: | 12591.1566845750@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 8/21/19 4:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> Still, if we simply added the skew to the snapshot time that might be
>>> enough to achieve what you want. That would be a one line change, I think.
>> +1
> Done. It's only happening prospectively, so we'll need to wait a few
> days to see it flow through.
Hm, doesn't seem to have done the trick. The current dashboard page shows
(in the v12 branch)
mule ... 01:17 ago OK [97205d0] Config
loach ... 01:32 ago OK [97205d0] Config
dangomushi ... 02:11 ago OK [97205d0] Config
bowerbird ... 02:23 ago scriptsCheck [97205d0] Details
snapper ... 02:48 ago OK [63fc3b1] Config
caiman ... 03:04 ago OK [97205d0] Config
nightjar ... 03:17 ago recoveryCheck [97205d0] Details
chub ... 03:29 ago OK [97205d0] Config
clam ... 03:34 ago OK [97205d0] Config
demoiselle ... 03:45 ago OK [97205d0] Config
snapper is clearly out of line here: the commit it claims
to have fetched 2:48 ago was obsoleted around seven hours ago.
(Snapper is one of the machines that is typically inconsistent
in this way. I've been assuming that's because its system clock
is a few hours off ... but maybe there's something else going on?)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2019-08-26 18:56:35 | Online checksums patch - once again |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-08-26 18:35:10 | Re: Does TupleQueueReaderNext() really need to copy its result? |