On sön, 2011-11-27 at 18:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@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. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
