Re: regresssion script hole
От
Andrew Dunstan
Тема
Re: regresssion script hole
Дата
Msg-id
4495CDA1.3000802@dunslane.net
Ответ на
Re: regresssion script hole (Tom Lane)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
regresssion script hole Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: regresssion script hole Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: regresssion script hole Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: regresssion script hole Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: regresssion script hole Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: regresssion script hole Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: regresssion script hole Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
Re: regresssion script hole Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
Re: regresssion script hole Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Re: regresssion script hole Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: regresssion script hole Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Re: regresssion script hole Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: regresssion script hole Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: regresssion script hole Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: regresssion script hole Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Re: regresssion script hole Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: regresssion script hole Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: regresssion script hole Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: regresssion script hole Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: regresssion script hole Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Re: regresssion script hole Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Tom Lane wrote: >Andrew Dunstan writes: > > >>The problem is that if the postmaster takes more than 60 seconds to >>start listening (as is apparently happening on spoonbill - don't yet >>know why) this code falls through. >> >> > >If the postmaster takes that long to start listening, I'd say we need to >fix the postmaster not pg_regress. > > > We need both, I think. I am still trying to find out why it's taking so long. This is on the 8.0 branch, though. Later branches seem to be working. >>I'm inclined to run the psql test one more time to make sure we can >>actually connect, and if not then fail at this point. >> >> > >How does that differ from just iterating the loop one more time? > > There is no guarantee that at the end of the loop we have connected successfully to postgres. I will post a patch that shows what I suggest. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления