Re: Improving tracking/processing of buildfarm test failures

From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improving tracking/processing of buildfarm test failures
Date: 2026-04-01 18:00:00
Message-ID: f7e78aea-da73-4dee-8cbf-8e0014c0543f@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello hackers,

Please take a look at the March report on buildfarm failures:
# SELECT br, COUNT(*) FROM failures WHERE dt >= '2026-03-01' AND
 dt < '2026-04-01' GROUP BY br;
REL_14_STABLE: 9
REL_15_STABLE: 8
REL_16_STABLE: 19
REL_17_STABLE: 18
REL_18_STABLE: 30
master: 349
-- Total: 433
(Counting test failures only, excluding indent-check, Configure, Build
errors, also excluding failures from fruitcrow and icarus.)

# SELECT COUNT(*) FROM (SELECT DISTINCT issue_link FROM failures WHERE
 dt >= '2026-03-01' AND dt < '2026-04-01');
29

# SELECT issue_link, COUNT(*) FROM failures WHERE dt >= '2026-03-01' AND
 dt < '2026-04-01' GROUP BY issue_link ORDER BY 2 DESC LIMIT 6;

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c64cbda0-7ef2-4762-8e70-9d0dedccc9cf%40gmail.com : 153
-- Fixed

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/985a5d4d-1f55-4917-9e06-ef31f53c9ad5%40eisentraut.org : 44
-- Fixed

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2805479.1775001311%40sss.pgh.pa.us : 36

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/bcf58f6e-d0bd-49f8-b074-e3ee69ef6567%40eisentraut.org : 18
-- Fixed

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZUN8FT1Ah%3Dm6Uis5bHa4FUa%2B_hMDWtcABG17toEfpiUg%40mail.gmail.com : 18
-- Fixed

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2178517.1774064942%40sss.pgh.pa.us : 12
-- Fixed

# SELECT COUNT(*) FROM failures WHERE dt >= '2026-03-01' AND
 dt < '2026-04-01' AND issue_link IS NULL; -- Unsorted/unhelpful failures
42
(Some of them are worth investigating.)

Short-lived failures: 307

Best regards,
Alexander

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2026-04-01 17:35:43 Re: Initial COPY of Logical Replication is too slow