| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Buildfarm alarms |
| Date: | 2006-09-24 02:24:25 |
| Message-ID: | 735.1159064665@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | buildfarm-members pgsql-hackers |
"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> It could certainly be done. In general, I have generally taken the view
> that owners have the responsibility for monitoring their own machines.
Sure, but providing them tools to do that seems within buildfarm's
purview.
For some types of failure, the buildfarm script could make a local
notification without bothering the server --- but a timeout on the
server side would cover a wider variety of failures, including "this
machine is dead and ought to be removed from the farm".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Mair | 2006-09-24 09:14:14 | [Pgbuildfarm-members] emu and guppy |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-09-24 02:12:48 | Re: Buildfarm alarms |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-09-24 03:17:44 | Re: ReadBuffer(P_NEW) versus valid buffers |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-09-24 02:12:48 | Re: Buildfarm alarms |