Re: pg_upgrade automatic testing
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-12-05T19:45:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On sön, 2011-11-27 at 18:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > > I've committed it now, and some buildfarm members are failing with lack > > of shared memory, semaphores, or disk space. Don't know what to do with > > that or why so many are failing like that. We could create a way to > > omit the test if it becomes a problem. > > I believe the issue is that those BF members have kernel settings that > only support running one postmaster at a time. The way you've got this > set up, it launches a new private postmaster during a make installcheck; > which is not only problematic from a resource consumption standpoint, > but seems to me to violate the spirit of make installcheck, because > what it's testing is not the installed postmaster but a local instance. > > Can you confine the test to only occur in "make check" mode, not "make > installcheck", please? FWIW, the original definition of installcheck is that it tests the already installed programs, which is what this does (did). But I agree that the difference is minimal in this case.