| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
| Date: | 2018-08-09 05:03:34 |
| Message-ID: | 1938.1533791014@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Oooh ... but pg_class wouldn't be big enough to get a parallel
>> index rebuild during that test, would it?
> Typically not, but I don't think that we can rule it out right away.
Hmmm ... maybe we should temporarily stick in an elog(LOG) showing whether
a parallel build happened or not, so that we can check the buildfarm logs
next time we see that failure?
> I don't know all that much about the buildfarm client code, and it's
> late.
It doesn't really stick in any undocumented configuration changes,
AFAIK. Possibly Andrew would have some more insight.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-08-09 05:08:26 | Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-08-09 04:55:23 | Re: buildfarm: could not read block 3 in file "base/16384/2662": read only 0 of 8192 bytes |