Re: Solaris 7 SPARC passes tests (was Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Tests randomly failed)

2001-03-30 Thread Rick Robino
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 08:08:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Mathijs Brands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > No luck :( Tests still randomly crash. (This is an Ultra 10 machine.) > > How about if you change the pg_regress script to use TCP connections? > (Look for the bit that forces unix_sockets

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Tests randomly failed

2001-03-29 Thread Justin Clift
Hi Tom, My guess is that it would be possible to insert a check to see if the installed Postmaster was started with -i, and then choose between Unix domain sockets or TCP. BUT, whether trying to explain this in the installation document to the novice user who is setting up PostgreSQL for about t

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Tests randomly failed

2001-03-28 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Richard T. Robino writes: > - A more specific postmaster startup for a normal make check which says > whether inet or unix sockets will be used. If you aren't aware of the > problem on solaris and don't check netstat, the message is generic and there > is a socket file in /tmp regardless of what

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Tests randomly failed

2001-03-28 Thread Richard T. Robino
On 3/27/01 8:05 AM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexander Klimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Yes, it was really just incidence -- I try again, and 15 of 15 `make >> check' passed with TCP sockets, but only 3 of 15 passed with UNIX >> sockets. So, final decision is `Unix sockets are

Re: Solaris 7 SPARC passes tests (was Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Tests randomly failed)

2001-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Mathijs Brands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No luck :( Tests still randomly crash. (This is an Ultra 10 machine.) How about if you change the pg_regress script to use TCP connections? (Look for the bit that forces unix_sockets=no for certain OSes, and add solaris) regard

Solaris 7 SPARC passes tests (was Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Tests randomly failed)

2001-03-27 Thread Mathijs Brands
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 02:40:00AM +0200, Mathijs Brands allegedly wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 07:17:47PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut allegedly wrote: > > Tom Lane writes: > > > > > Alexander Klimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Yes, it was really just incidence -- I try again, and 15 of 1

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Tests randomly failed

2001-03-27 Thread Mathijs Brands
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 07:17:47PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut allegedly wrote: > Tom Lane writes: > > > Alexander Klimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Yes, it was really just incidence -- I try again, and 15 of 15 `make > > > check' passed with TCP sockets, but only 3 of 15 passed with UNIX > >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Tests randomly failed

2001-03-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > Alexander Klimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Yes, it was really just incidence -- I try again, and 15 of 15 `make > > check' passed with TCP sockets, but only 3 of 15 passed with UNIX > > sockets. So, final decision is `Unix sockets are not relaible on Solaris' What become

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Tests randomly failed

2001-03-27 Thread Tom Lane
Alexander Klimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, it was really just incidence -- I try again, and 15 of 15 `make > check' passed with TCP sockets, but only 3 of 15 passed with UNIX > sockets. So, final decision is `Unix sockets are not relaible on Solaris' So, shall we change pg_regress.sh to

[HACKERS] Re: [BUGS] Tests randomly failed

2001-03-27 Thread Alexander Klimov
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Justin Clift wrote: > Out of curiosity, how many times are you running the tests? > > I've been building 7.1RC1 over the weekend, and from one compiled > version I ran the regression tests 5 times before getting things to > pass. No changes anywhere, just re-ran the tests. >