Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows

From: Жарков Роман <r(dot)zharkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Badrul Chowdhury <bachow(at)microsoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows
Date: 2019-07-18 09:14:34
Message-ID: B9F855CF-1756-40FA-B9AF-1F48A9480269@postgrespro.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I have tested clean REL_11_STABLE.
Commit f02259fe was reverted by df8b5f3e in this branch.
So pg_ctl uses “old” open() function.

regards, Roman

> 18 июля 2019 г., в 15:51, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> написал(а):
>
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 09:54:16PM +0700, r(dot)zharkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru wrote:
>> You are right. I tested branch REL_11_STABLE and it is my mistake.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The probability is very small. In one of our tests pg_ctl fails with that
>> error sometime.
>> In a test with multiple frequent restarts the probability is 5-6%. On other
>> machines probability differs.
>> To find out the real error code we used the Process Monitor utility.
>
> I would like to be sure of something here. Are those failures based
> on what you have tested on REL_11_STABLE or do you still see pg_ctl
> complain about such things on HEAD (post f02259fe as mentioned by Tom
> upthread)? I would like to think that you mean the former and the
> latter, but this thread mentions only the former.
> --
> Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2019-07-18 09:40:32 Re: SegFault on 9.6.14
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2019-07-18 09:00:48 Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows