Re: [HACKERS] frogmouth failures

On 04/27/2017 04:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> I've been trying to track down the cause of recent failures at the "make
>> check" stage on frogmouth, a 32-bit Windows/Mingw instance running on XP.
> I've been wondering about that too.
>
>> Then I tried running (offline mode) the serial schedule instead of the
>> parallel schedule, and it went through with no error. So then I tried
>> setting MAX_CONNECTIONS=10 and that also worked - see
>> <https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=frogmouth&dt=2017-04-27%2018%3A10%3A08>
>> I've reverted that setting, but if errors start to occur again we'll
>> have some slight notion of where to look.
> Judging by the recent history,
> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=frogmouth&br=HEAD
> it's not 100% reproducible.  (Either that, or we un-broke it and re-broke
> it within the last week, which seems improbable.)  So unless you made
> quite a few successful runs with the lower MAX_CONNECTIONS setting,
> I'm dubious that there's really a connection.
>
> Having said that, I won't be a bit surprised if it is some sort of
> parallelism effect.  I just don't think one test proves much.
>

I'll leave it on for a week and then remove it, that should give us a larger sample.

cheers

andrew 


-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services