Re: Tracing down buildfarm "postmaster does not shut down" failures

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Tracing down buildfarm "postmaster does not shut down" failures
Date: 2016-02-09 20:52:39
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 02/09/2016 03:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 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.

OK. I can put out a new release as required.



In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2016-02-09 21:03:32 Re: Multi-tenancy with RLS
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-02-09 20:47:22 Re: Multi-tenancy with RLS