On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> That makes me wonder if on top of the buildfarm, extending some buildfarm
> machines into a "crashfarm" is needed:
>
> - Keep kvm instances with copy-on-write snapshot disks and the build env
> on them
> - Fire up the VM, do a build, and star
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> So I went to fix this in the obvious way (attached), but while testing
> it I found that the number of buffers_backend events reported during
> a regression test run barely changed; which surprised the heck out of
> me, so I dug deeper. The cause
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 07/18/2012 08:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not sure if we need a whole "farm", but certainly having at least one
>> machine testing this sort of stuff on a regular basis would make me feel
>> a lot better.
> OK. That's something I can actually be useful for.
> My current q
On 07/18/2012 08:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Not sure if we need a whole "farm", but certainly having at least one
machine testing this sort of stuff on a regular basis would make me feel
a lot better.
OK. That's something I can actually be useful for.
My current qemu/kvm test harness control code
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 07/18/2012 06:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This implies that nobody has done pull-the-plug testing on either HEAD
>> or 9.2 since the checkpointer split went in (2011-11-01)
> That makes me wonder if on top of the buildfarm, extending some
> buildfarm machines into a "cras
On 07/18/2012 06:56 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, while we are on the subject: hasn't this split completely broken
the statistics about backend-initiated writes?
Yes, it seems to have done just that.
So I went to fix this in th
