Thread: Re: [Buildfarm:63] Re: Why is citext/regress failing on hamerkop?

Re: [Buildfarm:63] Re: Why is citext/regress failing on hamerkop?

From
TAKATSUKA Haruka
Date:
Hello,

I'm a hamerkop maintainer.
Sorry I have missed the scm error for so long.

Today I switched scmrepo from git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql.git 
to github.com/postgres/postgres.git and successfully modernized
the build target code.

with best regards, Haruka Takatsuka


On Thu, 16 May 2024 16:18:23 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> > For citext_utf8, I pushed cff4e5a3.  Hamerkop runs infrequently, so
> > here's hoping for 100% green on master by Tuesday or so.
> 
> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it doesn't seem that changed anything:
> 
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=hamerkop&dt=2024-05-16%2011%3A00%3A32
> 
> ... and now that I look more closely, the reason why it didn't
> change anything is that hamerkop is still building 0294df2
> on HEAD.  All its other branches are equally stuck at the
> end of March.  So this is a flat-out-broken animal, and I
> plan to just ignore it until its owner un-sticks it.
> (In particular, I think we shouldn't be in a hurry to push
> the patch discussed downthread.)
> 
> Andrew: maybe the buildfarm server could be made to flag
> animals building exceedingly old commits?  This is the second
> problem of this sort that I've noticed this month, and you
> really have to look closely to realize it's happening.
> 
>             regards, tom lane


_____________________________________________________________________



Re: Why is citext/regress failing on hamerkop?

From
Tom Lane
Date:
TAKATSUKA Haruka <harukat@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
> I'm a hamerkop maintainer.
> Sorry I have missed the scm error for so long.

> Today I switched scmrepo from git.postgresql.org/git/postgresql.git 
> to github.com/postgres/postgres.git and successfully modernized
> the build target code.

Thanks very much!  I see hamerkop has gone green in HEAD.

It looks like it succeeded in v13 too but failed in v12,
which suggests that the isolationcheck problem is intermittent,
which is not too surprising given our current theory about
what's causing that.

At this point I think we are too close to the 17beta1 release
freeze to mess with it, but I'd support pushing Thomas'
proposed patch after the freeze is over.

            regards, tom lane