On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> Does anyone have any thoughts on why Travis CI might be failing >> occasionally as shown below, but the build farm apparently doesn't? >> It's not alien technology, it's just Ubuntu Linux running on a virtual >> machine. One thing that it does slightly differently is "make >> -Otarget -j3 check-world" but I don't see why -j3 would break >> something like that specifically, except perhaps by overloading the >> system in a way that affects timing. > > Quite a few of us use -jsomething with make check-world, so I doubt > that that's an issue per se. I have no idea what -Otarget means in > this context though, and neither does "info make".
-Otarget means that it should buffer the output from all the parallel jobs and then serialise them into per-target chunks, so that you can read the output instead of getting intermingled lines from concurrent stuff. I learned this trick from Andres... I think it landed in GNU make 4.something, so it's quite new. The latest web documentation only says that it exists, and doesn't say what it does! https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html >> # aborting wait: program timed out > > Hmm -- looking at src/test/recovery/t/013_crash_restart.pl, that > message comes out if this timer expires: > > # To avoid hanging while expecting some specific input from a psql > # instance being driven by us, add a timeout high enough that it > # should never trigger even on very slow machines, unless something > # is really wrong. > my $psql_timeout = IPC::Run::timer(60); > > so in other words, all you need for this failure is for > 013_crash_restart.pl to take more than 60 seconds (per-command, I think, > not total). I find the comment's optimism about that being impossible > rather naive :-(, even if the test does take only a couple of seconds on > typical modern hardware. I see in the buildfarm that skink takes >240 > seconds ... Ahh. > If you can easily experiment with changing that limit to 120 or 180 > seconds, or can measure how long the test takes when it passes, that'd > be useful info. Will look into that. Thanks! -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
