Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows
Дата
Msg-id
1580.1563512383@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows (Michael Paquier)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
RE: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Badrul Chowdhury <bachow@microsoft.com>
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows r.zharkov@postgrespro.ru
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Жарков Роман <r.zharkov@postgrespro.ru>
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows r.zharkov@postgrespro.ru
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Жарков Роман <r.zharkov@postgrespro.ru>
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows r.zharkov@postgrespro.ru
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows r.zharkov@postgrespro.ru
Re: Intermittent pg_ctl failures on Windows Жарков Роман <r.zharkov@postgrespro.ru>
Michael Paquier writes: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 04:14:34PM +0700, Жарков Роман wrote: >> I have tested clean REL_11_STABLE. >> Commit f02259fe was reverted by df8b5f3e in this branch. >> So pg_ctl uses “old” open() function. > Yeah, that was a failure from me, so I tend to be rather very careful > about anything related to Windows. However, after that we have added > 40cfe86 about which nobody has complained yet, and the number of > buildfarm failures about pg_ctl concurrency on HEAD has gone down to > zero since (perhaps I am missing something?). Hm, I think 0ba06e0 is actually the relevant change here? Though 40cfe86 was a necessary cleanup fix. I'm too tired to dig in the buildfarm database to be sure, but my impression is that the failure rate is much-better-but-not-zero. So I'd support back-patching those two commits, but I'm not sure if that's the end of the conversation. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления