Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEwvDke3eBJqsJ-CoNBvW8oPdE20WWV3MF7jeXrK7SHm_g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: The buildfarm is in a pretty bad way, folks
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-04-06 16:59:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But in particular, it's clear that partition_prune and
>> isolation/checksum_cancel are showing big problems.
> While I'm obviously also unhappy about the frantic push to push semi
> baked stuff, I'm not sure the two issues you point to above are that
> good examples of carelessness. At least the latter seems mostly a pretty
> normal portability thing around orderedness?
I'm just venting, perhaps, but if there's a good reason for that
to have been left broken for ~24 hours, I don't know what it is.
It's getting in the way of testing other recent commits.
(I'm also not real happy about the amount of time the checksum-xxx
tests consume.)
The isolation tester ones, or the regular ones? Because the regular ones finish in << 30 seconds here, just wondering if that actually counts as too time consuming in this type of tests?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: