From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing |
Date: | 2011-12-05 19:45:29 |
Message-ID: | 1323114329.10992.22.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On sön, 2011-11-27 at 18:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?
FWIW, the original definition of installcheck is that it tests the
already installed programs, which is what this does (did). But I agree
that the difference is minimal in this case.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-12-05 19:47:30 | Re: hiding variable-length fields from Form_pg_* structs |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-12-05 19:42:19 | Re: [PATCH] Caching for stable expressions with constant arguments v3 |