Re: pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 55E8A763.9050402@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_ctl/pg_rewind tests vs. slow AIX buildfarm members
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/03/2015 03:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: >>> I'don't like adding a couple seconds of test runtime for the benefit of >>> very slow platforms. >> Me either. This is the first time I've seen an indication that the >> start_postmaster change mentioned in the comment is actually important >> for production use, rather than just being cleanup. I think we ought >> to just fix it. I'm willing to take care of the Unix side if someone >> will explain how to change the Windows side. > Attached is a draft patch for this. I think it's fine for Unix (unless > someone wants to object to relying on "/bin/sh -c"), but I have no idea > whether it works for Windows. The main risk is that if CMD.EXE runs > the postmaster as a subprocess rather than overlaying itself a la shell > "exec", the PID we'd get back would apply only to CMD.EXE not to the > eventual postmaster. If so, I do not know how to fix that, or whether > it's fixable at all. > > Note that this makes the test case in question fail reliably, which is > reasonable behavior IMO so I just changed the test. > > If this does (or can be made to) work on Windows, I'd propose applying > it back to 9.2, where the current coding came in. There is no equivalent of execl, nor a cmd.exe exquivalent of the shell's exec. But surely the equivalent of the fork/execl you're doing here would be a simple CreateProcess(). I don't see why you need a shell in the middle on Windows at all. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: