Re: [HACKERS] PGCTLTIMEOUT in pg_regress, or skink versus the clock

2016-04-20 Thread Tom Lane
Noah Misch writes: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:38:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I am thinking that we missed a bet in commit 2ffa86962077c588 >> et al, and that pg_regress's hard-wired 60-second start timeout ought to >> be overridable from an environment variable just as pg_ctl's timeout is. >>

Re: [HACKERS] PGCTLTIMEOUT in pg_regress, or skink versus the clock

2016-04-20 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 06:38:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I am thinking that we missed a bet in commit 2ffa86962077c588 > et al, and that pg_regress's hard-wired 60-second start timeout ought to > be overridable from an environment variable just as pg_ctl's timeout is. > It might as well be the s

[HACKERS] PGCTLTIMEOUT in pg_regress, or skink versus the clock

2016-04-20 Thread Tom Lane
Buildfarm member skink has failed three times recently like this: http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=skink&dt=2016-04-15%2001%3A20%3A44 the relevant part of that being pg_regress: postmaster did not respond within 60 seconds Examine /home/andres/build/buildfarm/REL9_5_STABLE/