Re: Idea for improving buildfarm robustness

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> BTW, my thought at the moment is to wait till after next week's releases
>> to push this in.  I think it's probably solid, but it doesn't seem like
>> it's worth taking the risk of pushing shortly before a wrap date.

> That seems a wiser approach to me. Down to which version are you planning a
> backpatch? As this is aimed for the buildfarm stability with TAP stuff, 9.4?

What we'd discussed was applying this to all branches that contain the
5-second-timeout logic, which is everything back to 9.1.  The branches
that have TAP tests have a wider cross-section for failure in the
buildfarm because more postmaster starts are involved, but all of them
are capable of getting burnt this way --- see shearwater's results for
instance.
        regards, tom lane