Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2018-04-06 16:59:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> But in particular, it's clear that partition_prune and
> >> isolation/checksum_cancel are showing big problems.
>
> > While I'm obviously also unhappy about the frantic push to push semi
> > baked stuff, I'm not sure the two issues you point to above are that
> > good examples of carelessness. At least the latter seems mostly a pretty
> > normal portability thing around orderedness?
>
> I'm just venting, perhaps, but if there's a good reason for that
> to have been left broken for ~24 hours, I don't know what it is.
> It's getting in the way of testing other recent commits.
>
> (I'm also not real happy about the amount of time the checksum-xxx
> tests consume.)
>

The isolation tester ones, or the regular ones? Because the regular ones
finish in << 30 seconds here, just wondering if that actually counts as too
time consuming in this type of tests?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>