Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >>> If there's other stuff using high ports on a particular buildfarm machine, > >>> you'd expect occasional random test failures due to this. The observed > >>> fact that some buildfarm critters are much more prone to this type of > >>> failure than others is well explained by this hypothesis. > > > >> Each test run uses its own custom unix_socket_directories, PGHOST is > >> enforced to use it, and all the port tests go through that as well. > > > > By that argument, we don't need the free-port-searching code on Unix at > > all. But this discussion is mostly about Windows machines. > > Well, yes. That's true, we could do without. Even if this could give > an indication about a node running, as long as a port has been > associated to a node once, we just need to be sure that a new port is > not allocated. On Windows, I am not sure that it is worth the > complication to be honest, and the current code gives a small safety > net, which is better than nothing.
If we need to fix the test so that it works in a wider environment for Windows, I don't think it makes sense to remove anything -- rather we should change the test as Tom suggests to verify that the port is really free rather than just doing the pg_isready test. Maybe the additional test will be useless in non-Windows environment, but why cares? It will work all the same. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
