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

Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-12-05 19:47:30
Subject: Re: hiding variable-length fields from Form_pg_* structs
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2011-12-05 19:42:19
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Caching for stable expressions with constant arguments v3

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group