On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 12:49:16PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 12:29 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:42:13AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > I'm less
> > > sure it makes sense to do anything to support the presumed bogus
> > > zeroes bug for (probably) no real users, especially before we've even
> > > reported it and heard some analysis, for example acceptance that it's
> > > broken and confirmation that this really is just a sparc problem.
> >
> > Got it. I've already done a bad thing leaving the buildfarm broken for three
> > months, so I don't want to let the buildfarm wait for a kernel fix. These are
> > the two main options I'm seeing now:
> >
> > (a) Modify the tests so the affected animals can skip affected tests by
> > setting an environment variable, named PG_TEST_HAS_WAL_READ_BUG or similar.
> >
> > (b) Remove --enable-tap-tests from affected animals.
> >
> > Do you have a preference among those two or some other option that gets the
> > buildfarm green on a predictable schedule? I somewhat prefer (a), since
> > --enable-tap-tests is where most of the interesting buildfarm reports happen
> > these days.
>
> Trying out a new idea: what if we could tell the buildfarm website
> that a certain test is currently expected to fail for reasons we can't
> fix yet (configuration change needed but owner not responding, or
> bugfix from another project needed, etc)? That could cause it to be
> displayed in a different shade of green, or grey, or whatever? Other
> kinds of failures would still show as red. Perhaps this would be
> configured with a file in a git repo that any committer can push to.
That would be a better capability to use if we had it, agreed. Is it feasible
to acquire that capability soon enough?