Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests
Date: 2024-04-04 23:05:41
Message-ID: Zg8yReb2QDdN_Mtz@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 05:24:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The particular thing that started me down this road was wondering
> why we are getting no useful failure details from buildfarm member
> tanager's struggles with the tab-completion test case added by commit
> 927332b95 [1].

Also please note that tanager has been offline from around the 19th of
March to the 3rd of April, explaining the delay in reporting the
failure in this new psql test. I've switched it back online two days
ago.

Tom, would you like me to test your patch directly on the host? That
should be pretty quick, even if I've not yet checked if the failure is
reproducible with a manual build, outside the buildfarm scripts.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-04-04 23:09:53 Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2024-04-04 22:50:58 Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock