Re: Idea for improving buildfarm robustness

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Idea for improving buildfarm robustness
Date: 2015-10-03 14:25:10
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> BTW, my thought at the moment is to wait till after next week's releases
>> to push this in. I think it's probably solid, but it doesn't seem like
>> it's worth taking the risk of pushing shortly before a wrap date.

> That seems a wiser approach to me. Down to which version are you planning a
> backpatch? As this is aimed for the buildfarm stability with TAP stuff, 9.4?

What we'd discussed was applying this to all branches that contain the
5-second-timeout logic, which is everything back to 9.1. The branches
that have TAP tests have a wider cross-section for failure in the
buildfarm because more postmaster starts are involved, but all of them
are capable of getting burnt this way --- see shearwater's results for

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-10-03 15:15:54 Re: creating extension including dependencies
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-10-03 14:02:00 Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.