Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment
Date: 2010-08-12 14:22:43
Message-ID: 13573.1281622963@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On ons, 2010-08-11 at 16:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We should have the buildfarm configuration such that any one run uses
>> the same port number for both installed and uninstalled regression
>> tests.

> I'm getting lost here what the actual requirements are. The above is
> obviously not going to work as a default for pg_regress, because the
> port number for an installed test is determined by the user and is
> likely to be in the public range, whereas the uninstalled test should
> use something from the private range.

Certainly, but the buildfarm's "installed" test doesn't try to start on
5432. It starts on whatever branch_port the buildfarm owner has
specified for that animal and that branch. It's the owner's
responsibility to make that nonconflicting across the services and
buildfarm critters he has running on a given machine. What I'm saying
is that *in the buildfarm* we want the "make check" case to also use
this predetermined safe port number. That has nothing whatever to do
with what is good practice for other cases.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-08-12 14:31:43 Re: MERGE command for inheritance
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-08-12 14:15:57 Re: Libpq: PQftype, PQfsize