On 2024-07-08 Mo 8:00 AM, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Hello,
07.06.2024 17:25, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
I still think my patch to force TCP mode for the SSL test makes
sense as
well.
+1 to both things. If that doesn't get the failure rate down to an
acceptable level, we can loo
Hello,
07.06.2024 17:25, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
I still think my patch to force TCP mode for the SSL test makes sense as
well.
+1 to both things. If that doesn't get the failure rate down to an
acceptable level, we can look at the retry idea.
I'd like to add that the kerber
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 2024-06-06 Th 18:02, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>> For the PgBouncer test suite we do something similar as the PG its
>> perl tests do, but there we allocate a port between 10200 and 32768:
>> https://github.com/pgbouncer/pgbouncer/blob/master/test/utils.py#L192-L215
> M
On 2024-06-06 Th 18:02, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 23:37, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 2024-06-05 We 16:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
That is, psql from the test instance 001_ssltests_34 opened a
connection to
the test server with the client port 50072 and it
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 23:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 2024-06-05 We 16:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> >> That is, psql from the test instance 001_ssltests_34 opened a
> >> connection to
> >> the test server with the client port 50072 and it made using the port by
> >> the
On 2024-06-05 We 16:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Hello Andrew,
05.06.2024 21:10, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think I see what's going on here. It looks like it's because we
start the server in unix socket mode, and then switch to using TCP as
well.
Can you try your test with this patch applie
On 2024-06-05 We 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan writes:
On 2024-06-05 We 16:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
That is, psql from the test instance 001_ssltests_34 opened a
connection to
the test server with the client port 50072 and it made using the port by
the server from the test instanc
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 2024-06-05 We 16:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
>> That is, psql from the test instance 001_ssltests_34 opened a
>> connection to
>> the test server with the client port 50072 and it made using the port by
>> the server from the test instance 001_ssltests_30 impossible.
On 2024-06-05 We 16:49, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 2024-06-05 We 16:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Hello Andrew,
05.06.2024 21:10, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think I see what's going on here. It looks like it's because we
start the server in unix socket mode, and then switch to using TCP
as well
On 2024-06-05 We 16:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Hello Andrew,
05.06.2024 21:10, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think I see what's going on here. It looks like it's because we
start the server in unix socket mode, and then switch to using TCP as
well.
Can you try your test with this patch applie
Hello Andrew,
05.06.2024 21:10, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I think I see what's going on here. It looks like it's because we start the server in unix socket mode, and then
switch to using TCP as well.
Can you try your test with this patch applied and see if the problem persists? If we start in TC
On 2024-06-05 We 14:10, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 2024-06-05 We 09:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Another case (with psql using the port):
testrun/ssl/001_ssltests_47/log/regress_log_001_ssltests_47:#
Checking port 49448
testrun/ssl/001_ssltests_47/log/regress_log_001_ssltests_47:# Found
port
On 2024-06-05 We 09:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
Another case (with psql using the port):
testrun/ssl/001_ssltests_47/log/regress_log_001_ssltests_47:# Checking
port 49448
testrun/ssl/001_ssltests_47/log/regress_log_001_ssltests_47:# Found
port 49448
testrun/ssl/001_ssltests_47/log/001_ssltest
13 matches
Mail list logo
