| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Idea for improving buildfarm robustness |
| Date: | 2015-09-29 20:48:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20150929204819.GK2573@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway wrote:
> On 09/29/2015 12:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > We could possibly add additional checks, like trying to verify that
> > pg_control has the same inode number it used to. But I'm afraid that
> > would add portability issues and false-positive hazards that would
> > outweigh the value.
>
> Not sure you remember the incident, but I think years ago that would
> have saved me some heartache ;-)
I remember it, but I'm not sure it would have helped you. As I recall,
your trouble was that after a reboot the init script decided to initdb
the mount point -- postmaster wouldn't have been running at all ...
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2015-09-29 20:53:33 | Re: Idea for improving buildfarm robustness |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-09-29 20:46:57 | Re: No Issue Tracker - Say it Ain't So! |