I wrote:
> It may be worth doing the SIGKILL on Unix even if we don't have a
> solution for Windows, but it'd be nice if to have a solution for
> the Windows port too.
I've applied a trivial patch to do the SIGKILL on non-Windows machines.
If any Windows gurus can make it work on Windows too, go f
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure whether there's anything much we can do to prevent such
>> problems in future. Maybe it'd be reasonable for pg_regress to do a
>> kill -9 on its postmaster child process if it gives up waiting for the
>> postmaster to acc
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:29:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > What's happened is that that GUC patch that was in the tree for a few
> > hours broke postmaster startup on some machines (for as-yet-unidentified
> > reasons). The postmas
Tom Lane wrote:
A number of the buildfarm machines have been failing HEAD builds
at the "make check" stage since last night, with complaints like
this one from emu:
== pgsql.21911/src/test/regress/log/postmaster.log
===
FATAL: lock file "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.55678.
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 11:29:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> What's happened is that that GUC patch that was in the tree for a few
> hours broke postmaster startup on some machines (for as-yet-unidentified
> reasons). The postmaster does actually start and establish its
> lockfiles, but it never ge
A number of the buildfarm machines have been failing HEAD builds
at the "make check" stage since last night, with complaints like
this one from emu:
== pgsql.21911/src/test/regress/log/postmaster.log
===
FATAL: lock file "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.55678.lock" already exists
