Re: Improving tracking/processing of buildfarm test failures - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Lakhin
Subject Re: Improving tracking/processing of buildfarm test failures
Date
Msg-id f7e78aea-da73-4dee-8cbf-8e0014c0543f@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improving tracking/processing of buildfarm test failures  (Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Initial COPY of Logical Replication is too slow
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: scale parallel_tuple_cost by tuple width