From: | Patrick Welche <prlw1(at)newn(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: beta3 Solaris 7 (SPARC) port report [ Was: Looking for . . . ] |
Date: | 2001-01-26 15:29:59 |
Message-ID: | 20010126152959.C8925@quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:13:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de> writes:
> > I just did that and ran make check 4 times. 3 times went completely
> > smoothly, once I had random fail. This is the same behaviour that I saw
> > when running make installcheck (76 successful most of the time,
> > sometimes you get 75 out of 76 with random being the one that fails).
>
> Er, you do realize that the random test is *supposed* to fail every so
> often? (Else it'd not be random...) See the pages on interpreting
> regression test results in the admin guide.
>
> What troubles me is the nonrepeatable failures you saw on other tests.
> As Peter says, if "make installcheck" (serial tests) is perfectly solid
> and "make check" (parallel tests) is not, that suggests some kind of
> interprocess locking problem. But we haven't heard about any such issue
> on Solaris.
Or simply running out of processes - check maxproc? (Deleted beginning of
this thread, so may have missed something)
Cheers,
Patrick
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James Thompson | 2001-01-26 15:31:41 | GNUe Forms 0.0.5 Released |
Previous Message | Igor V. Rafienko | 2001-01-26 15:22:36 | Re: The type int8 and the use of indexes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Frank Joerdens | 2001-01-26 16:03:13 | Re: beta3 Solaris 7 (SPARC) port report |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-01-26 15:07:27 | Re: Open 7.1 items |