Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> If there's other stuff using high ports on a particular buildfarm machine,
> >>> you'd expect occasional random test failures due to this.  The observed
> >>> fact that some buildfarm critters are much more prone to this type of
> >>> failure than others is well explained by this hypothesis.
> >
> >> Each test run uses its own custom unix_socket_directories, PGHOST is
> >> enforced to use it, and all the port tests go through that as well.
> >
> > By that argument, we don't need the free-port-searching code on Unix at
> > all.  But this discussion is mostly about Windows machines.
> Well, yes. That's true, we could do without. Even if this could give
> an indication about a node running, as long as a port has been
> associated to a node once, we just need to be sure that a new port is
> not allocated. On Windows, I am not sure that it is worth the
> complication to be honest, and the current code gives a small safety
> net, which is better than nothing.

If we need to fix the test so that it works in a wider environment for
Windows, I don't think it makes sense to remove anything -- rather we
should change the test as Tom suggests to verify that the port is really
free rather than just doing the pg_isready test.  Maybe the additional
test will be useless in non-Windows environment, but why cares?  It will
work all the same.

Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to