Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start
Date
Msg-id 8191.1493069619@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-04-24 13:16:44 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Unclear if related, but
>> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=gharial&dt=2017-04-24%2019%3A30%3A42
>> has a suspicious timing of failing in a weird way.

> Given that gharial is also failing on 9.6 (same set of commits) and
> coypu fails (again same set) on 9.6
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=coypu&dt=2017-04-24%2018%3A20%3A33

coypu's problem is unrelated:

running bootstrap script ... 2017-04-24 23:04:53.084 CEST [21114] FATAL:  could not create semaphores: No space left on
device
2017-04-24 23:04:53.084 CEST [21114] DETAIL:  Failed system call was semget(1, 17, 03600).

but it does seem likely that one of these patches broke gharial.
That's pretty annoying :-(
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DELETE and UPDATE with LIMIT and ORDER BY
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start