| 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 | 
| Message-ID: | 56BA5197.6020205@dunslane.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| 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 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.
>
> 			
OK. I can put out a new release as required.
cheers
andrew
| 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 |