From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Tracing down buildfarm "postmaster does not shut down" failures |
Date: | 2016-02-09 20:05:01 |
Message-ID: | 19415.1455048301@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> In any case, we should proceed with fixing things so that buildfarm owners
> can specify a higher shutdown timeout for especially slow critters.
I looked into doing this as I suggested yesterday, namely modifying the
buildfarm scripts, and soon decided that it would be a mess; there are
too many cases where "pg_ctl stop" is not invoked directly by the script.
I'm now in favor of applying the PGCTLTIMEOUT patch Noah proposed, and
*removing* the two existing hacks in run_build.pl that try to force -t 120.
The only real argument I can see against that approach is that we'd have
to back-patch the PGCTLTIMEOUT patch to all active branches if we want
to stop the buildfarm failures. We don't usually back-patch feature
additions. On the other hand, this wouldn't be the first time we've
back-patched something on grounds of helping the buildfarm, so I find
that argument pretty weak.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-09 20:05:14 | Re: Multi-tenancy with RLS |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2016-02-09 20:01:25 | Re: Multi-tenancy with RLS |