Re: GNU/Hurd portability patches

From: Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: GNU/Hurd portability patches
Date: 2025-09-21 11:02:27
Message-ID: 68cfdb44.170a0220.667fb.33cc@mx.google.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 09:00:00AM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> 02.07.2025 02:53, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Catching up on this thread after-the-fact, specifically looking at
> > 29213636e6cd as I did the original check tweaked here for O_RDONLY.
> > Agreed that a backpatch should be OK as done. The buildfarm looks OK
> > currently.
>
> Three months later we can see a number of failures produced by that
> animal on several branches, e.g. [1]:
> timed out after 3600 secs

Right, I've noticed them as well of course, but did not have time to
take a closer look yet. This timeout in test_shm_mq happens on 32bit
hurd-i386 as well, btw.

> It's not that easy to see a backtrace of the running processes on that OS,
> but with some debug logging (attached), I can see that the test backend
> process or shm_mq background worker just gets stuck shortly after poll().

Thanks for taking a deeper look.

> So it seems to me that Hurd is not mature enough yet to test Postgres.

That is a bit harsh; this issue should be looked into, but I would not
say it is not mature enough to test Postgres.

Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Jones 2025-09-21 11:49:20 Add notification on BEGIN ATOMIC SQL functions using temp relations
Previous Message Junwang Zhao 2025-09-21 10:34:49 Re: plan shape work