On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 04:46:02PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> The machine skink is hosted on runs numerous buildfarm animals (24 I think
> right now, about to be 28). While it has plenty resources (16 cores/32
> threads, 128GB RAM), test runtime is still pretty variable depending on what
> other
Hi,
On 2023-10-12 14:00:00 +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> So to fail on the test, skink should perform at least twice slower than
> usual
The machine skink is hosted on runs numerous buildfarm animals (24 I think
right now, about to be 28). While it has plenty resources (16 cores/32
threads, 12
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 02:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> So to fail on the test, skink should perform at least twice slower than
> usual, and may be it's an extraordinary condition indeed, but on the other
> hand, may be increase checkpoint_timeout as already done in several tests
> (015
Hello hackers,
While investigating the recent skink failure [1], I've reproduced this
failure under Valgrind on a slow machine and found that this happens due to
the last checkpoint recorded in the segment 2, that is removed in the test:
The failure log contains:
2023-10-10 19:10:08.212 UTC [2144
