Re: pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members
Date
Msg-id 20150903103657.GD23957@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2015-09-03 02:25:00 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> --- a/src/bin/pg_ctl/t/001_start_stop.pl
> +++ b/src/bin/pg_ctl/t/001_start_stop.pl
> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ close CONF;
>  command_ok([ 'pg_ctl', 'start', '-D', "$tempdir/data", '-w' ],
>      'pg_ctl start -w');
> -command_ok([ 'pg_ctl', 'start', '-D', "$tempdir/data", '-w' ],
> -    'second pg_ctl start succeeds');
> +sleep 3;    # bridge test_postmaster_connection() slop threshold
> +command_fails([ 'pg_ctl', 'start', '-D', "$tempdir/data", '-w' ],
> +    'second pg_ctl start fails');
>  command_ok([ 'pg_ctl', 'stop', '-D', "$tempdir/data", '-w', '-m', 'fast' ],
>      'pg_ctl stop -w');

I'don't like adding a couple seconds of test runtime for the benefit of
very slow platforms.

The second pg_ctl start doesn't seem to test something very
interesting. I'm inclined to just remove it. I'm not caffeinated
sufficiently, but afaics that ought to sidestep the issue as stop
doesn't depend on the slop time?

> crake failed the same way, once:
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=crake&dt=2015-07-07%2016%3A35%3A06

Sounds like an actual production hazard too.

- Andres



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: Foreign join pushdown vs EvalPlanQual
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Horizontal scalability/sharding