Re: Instability of phycodorus in pg_upgrade tests with JIT

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Instability of phycodorus in pg_upgrade tests with JIT
Date: 2025-10-24 14:20:17
Message-ID: z4aloin5laepwqhmg6h3jlnatta5cntsvlvzqpajpejfpnyz7v@ufltmwo4y5ml
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2025-10-15 19:39:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> > I have spotted a couple of buildfarm failures for buildfarm member
> > phycodorus on REL_14_STABLE and REL_13_STABLE:
> > https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=phycodurus&dt=2025-10-15%2009%3A12%3A36
>
> phycodorus seems to be running a remarkably ancient LLVM version.

It intentionally tests the oldest supported version... If we don't care, I'm
happy enough to just remove the animal.

> I wonder if we should just write these off as "probably an LLVM bug".

I'm not sure that's really convincing, given that REL_16_STABLE seems to not
have an issue?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2025-10-24 14:20:38 Re: Feature: psql - display current search_path in prompt
Previous Message Sami Imseih 2025-10-24 14:17:22 Re: Bug in pg_stat_statements