From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgbf(at)twiska(dot)com, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: XLogReadRecord() error in XlogReadTwoPhaseData() |
Date: | 2022-01-24 00:28:47 |
Message-ID: | 1776885.1642984127@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 12:49:16PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Trying out a new idea: what if we could tell the buildfarm website
>> that a certain test is currently expected to fail for reasons we can't
>> fix yet (configuration change needed but owner not responding, or
>> bugfix from another project needed, etc)? That could cause it to be
>> displayed in a different shade of green, or grey, or whatever? Other
>> kinds of failures would still show as red. Perhaps this would be
>> configured with a file in a git repo that any committer can push to.
> That would be a better capability to use if we had it, agreed. Is it feasible
> to acquire that capability soon enough?
It's not merely a website issue: you'd really rather that the
buildfarm animal runs the rest of the tests rather than going belly-up
after an expected failure. I think your suggestion about skipping
problematic tests based on an environment variable is more practical
in the near term. We already have some cases like that, too, eg in
src/bin/psql/t/010_tab_completion.pl.
In the long term I could get behind having some less ad-hoc way
of skipping tests, but I don't think we can have that quickly.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-01-24 00:42:41 | Re: Replace uses of deprecated Python module distutils.sysconfig |
Previous Message | Zhihong Yu | 2022-01-24 00:25:04 | Re: Index Skip Scan (new UniqueKeys) |