Re: Buildfarm alarms - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dave Page
Subject Re: Buildfarm alarms
Date
Msg-id E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E40176CFE1@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Buildfarm alarms  ("Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: Buildfarm alarms  (Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de>)
List pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:andrew@dunslane.net]
> Sent: 24 September 2006 03:13
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: Buildfarm alarms
>
> It could certainly be done. In general, I have generally
> taken the view
> that owners have the responsibility for monitoring their own machines.
> I'll think about it some more.

We are monitoring the machine, however in this case nothing appeared
wrong to the monitoring processes - what had happened was that both had
hung or got in an inifinite loop in ECPG-check, the machine was running
just fine, and a glance at the process list showed everything I'd expect
to see during a normal run. A system for detecting lack of reports from
a member would definitely have helped in this case.

Regards, Dave


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
Next
From: Ron Mayer
Date:
Subject: Re: Fwd: Is the fsync() fake on FreeBSD6.1?