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

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:

> On 2018-04-06 23:12:19 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Daniel is working on investigating the isolationtester thing. See a mail
> on
> > one of the threads where initial indications were the "atomics with no
> real
> > atomics" (or whatever you'd call it) were to blame. We could redo that
> > thing without atomics to get rid of that (and possibly should), but it
> > would be good to figure out if it's actually broken first, so that part
> can
> > get fixed if it is.
>
> Is that an explanation for
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=
> gharial&dt=2018-04-06%2019%3A18%3A11
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=
> lousyjack&dt=2018-04-06%2016%3A03%3A01
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=
> sungazer&dt=2018-04-06%2015%3A46%3A16
> ? Those all don't seem fall under that? Having proper atomics?
>

No, sorry, bad wording. The initial indications were that, that's not the
*only* indications. There is possibly/probably more than one thing.

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