On 15.5.2014 00:41, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 13.5.2014 20:42, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 10.5.2014 20:21, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> On 9.5.2014 00:47, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>
>>> And I've requested 6 more animals - two for each compiler. One set for
>>> tests with basic CLOBBER, one set for recursive
On 2014-05-25 16:58:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2014-05-25 01:02:25 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >> The cache invalidation bug was apparently fixed, but we're still getting
> >> failures (see for example markhor):
> >> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl
On 2014-05-25 16:58:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2014-05-25 01:02:25 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >> The cache invalidation bug was apparently fixed, but we're still getting
> >> failures (see for example markhor):
> >> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2014-05-25 01:02:25 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> The cache invalidation bug was apparently fixed, but we're still getting
>> failures (see for example markhor):
>> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=markhor&br=HEAD
>> I see there's a transaction (COMM
On 2014-05-25 01:02:25 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 14.5.2014 15:17, Andres Freund wrote:
> The cache invalidation bug was apparently fixed, but we're still getting
> failures (see for example markhor):
>
> http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=markhor&br=HEAD
>
> I see there's
On 14.5.2014 15:17, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-14 15:08:08 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 14 Květen 2014, 13:51, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On 2014-05-13 20:42:16 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Can someone please approve the animals I've requested a few days ago?
I'm already running th
On 13.5.2014 20:42, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 10.5.2014 20:21, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 9.5.2014 00:47, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>
>> And I've requested 6 more animals - two for each compiler. One set for
>> tests with basic CLOBBER, one set for recursive CLOBBER.
>
> Can someone please approve the an
On 2014-05-14 15:08:08 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 14 Květen 2014, 13:51, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2014-05-13 20:42:16 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >> Can someone please approve the animals I've requested a few days ago?
> >> I'm already running the clobber tests with '--nosend --nostatus' a
On 14 Květen 2014, 13:51, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-13 20:42:16 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Can someone please approve the animals I've requested a few days ago?
>> I'm already running the clobber tests with '--nosend --nostatus' and
>> it's already reporting some errors. Would be nice to
On 2014-05-13 20:42:16 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Can someone please approve the animals I've requested a few days ago?
> I'm already running the clobber tests with '--nosend --nostatus' and
> it's already reporting some errors. Would be nice to get it to the
> buildfarm.
Can you provide some de
On 10.5.2014 20:21, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 9.5.2014 00:47, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> So, if I get this right, the proposal is to have 7 animals:
>>
>>
>> 1) all branches/locales, frequent builds (every few hours)
>> magpie - gcc
>> fulmar - icc
>> treepie - clang
>>
>> 2) single branch/loc
On 9.5.2014 00:47, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 8.5.2014 23:48, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 05/08/2014 05:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
I really don't get what your objection to the setup is. And no, I
don't want them to run concurrently, I'd rather spread out
On 9.5.2014 00:47, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 8.5.2014 23:48, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 05/08/2014 05:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
I really don't get what your objection to the setup is. And no, I
don't want them to run concurrently, I'd rather spread out
On 9.5.2014 20:09, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I've done that a bit in the past. At one stage all my Windows animals
> were some sort of bat. There's nothing magical about the names. It's
> just a text field and can be whatever we like. I initially started with
> animals because it seemed like a cat
On 9.5.2014 17:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> So, if I get this right, the proposal is to have 7 animals:
>
> It's your machine, so you decide what you want. I'm only throwing
> out some ideas.
>
>> 1) all branches/locales, frequent builds (every few hours) magpie
>> - gcc
On 05/09/2014 11:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
I guess it depends how likely we think that a different compiler will
change the behavior of the shared invalidation queue. Somebody else
would have to answer that. If not, then clearly we need
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> > I guess it depends how likely we think that a different compiler will
>> > change the behavior of the shared invalidation queue. Somebody else
>> > would
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I guess it depends how likely we think that a different compiler will
> > change the behavior of the shared invalidation queue. Somebody else
> > would have to answer that. If not, then clearly we need only 5 anima
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I guess it depends how likely we think that a different compiler will
> change the behavior of the shared invalidation queue. Somebody else
> would have to answer that. If not, then clearly we need only 5 animals.
This may be heresy, but
Tomas Vondra wrote:
> So, if I get this right, the proposal is to have 7 animals:
It's your machine, so you decide what you want. I'm only throwing out
some ideas.
> 1) all branches/locales, frequent builds (every few hours)
> magpie - gcc
> fulmar - icc
> treepie - clang
>
> 2) single
On 8.5.2014 23:48, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 05/08/2014 05:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>> I really don't get what your objection to the setup is. And no, I
>>> don't want them to run concurrently, I'd rather spread out the
>>> cycles.
>> I wasn't objecting, merely
On 05/08/2014 05:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I really don't get what your objection to the setup is. And no, I
don't want them to run concurrently, I'd rather spread out the
cycles.
I wasn't objecting, merely an observation. Note that Tomas mentioned
he's okay with run
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I really don't get what your objection to the setup is. And no, I
> don't want them to run concurrently, I'd rather spread out the
> cycles.
I wasn't objecting, merely an observation. Note that Tomas mentioned
he's okay with running 4 builds at once. My main point here,
On 05/08/2014 04:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Why? This was actually discussed when I set this up and Tom opined
that a once a day run with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS was plenty. It takes
about 4 /12 hours. The rest of the time nightjar runs. friarbird runs
a bit after midnight US East Coast tim
On 05/08/2014 04:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Here is what I do on my FreeBSD VM. I have 2 animals, nightjar and
friarbird. They have the same buildroot. friarbird is set up to
build with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS, building just HEAD and just testing
C locale; nightjar builds
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Here is what I do on my FreeBSD VM. I have 2 animals, nightjar and
> friarbird. They have the same buildroot. friarbird is set up to
> build with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS, building just HEAD and just testing
> C locale; nightjar builds all branches we are interested in and
> te
On 05/08/2014 12:21 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 6.5.2014 23:01, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 6.5.2014 22:24, Tom Lane wrote:
Tomas Vondra writes:
I recall there was a call for more animals with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
some time ago, so I went and enabled that on all three animals. Let's
see how long
Tomas Vondra wrote:
> H, with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS + CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY the tests take
> ~20h on a single branch/animal. With a single locale (e.g. "C") it would
> take ~4h, but we're testing a bunch of additional czech/slovak locales.
>
> The tests are running in sequence (magpie->treepie-
On 6.5.2014 23:01, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 6.5.2014 22:24, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Tomas Vondra writes:
>>> I recall there was a call for more animals with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
>>> some time ago, so I went and enabled that on all three animals. Let's
>>> see how long that will take.
>>
>>> I see there
On 6.5.2014 22:24, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra writes:
>> I recall there was a call for more animals with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
>> some time ago, so I went and enabled that on all three animals. Let's
>> see how long that will take.
>
>> I see there are more 'clobber' options in the code: CLOBB
Tomas Vondra writes:
> I recall there was a call for more animals with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
> some time ago, so I went and enabled that on all three animals. Let's
> see how long that will take.
> I see there are more 'clobber' options in the code: CLOBBER_FREED_MEMORY
> and CLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSI
On 4.5.2014 21:29, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 3.5.2014 19:01, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 05/03/2014 12:42 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> On 3.5.2014 03:07, Noah Misch wrote:
More coverage of non-gcc compilers would be an asset to the buildfarm.
>>> Does that include non-gcc compilers on Linux/x
Andres Freund wrote:
> > > * sparc 32bit
> >
> > Do we really care about sparc 32bit at this point? You're talking a
> > 10-year-old machine, there.
>
> I personally don't really, but the last time it came up significant
> parts of community opinionated the other way. And I'd rather have it
> t
Hi,
On 2014-05-04 12:35:44 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > There's pretty little coverage of non mainstream platforms/compilers in
> > the buildfarm atm. Maybe we should send an email on -announce asking for
> > new ones?
> > There's no coverage for OS-wise;
> > * AIX (at all)
> > * HP-UX (for maste
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 05/04/2014 11:13 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>
Architecture wise there's no coverage for:
* some ARM architecture varians
>>>
>>>
>>> I could run a buildfarm animal on
On 05/04/2014 11:13 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
Architecture wise there's no coverage for:
* some ARM architecture varians
I could run a buildfarm animal on a Raspberry Pi if the Postgres
community will replace my flash cards as they burn out
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Architecture wise there's no coverage for:
> > * some ARM architecture varians
>
> I could run a buildfarm animal on a Raspberry Pi if the Postgres
> community will replace my flash cards as they burn out.
>
Heikki already does that - it's c
Andres,
> There's pretty little coverage of non mainstream platforms/compilers in
> the buildfarm atm. Maybe we should send an email on -announce asking for
> new ones?
> There's no coverage for OS-wise;
> * AIX (at all)
> * HP-UX (for master at least)
> (* Tru64)
> (* UnixWare)
Do we want a Smar
On 3.5.2014 19:01, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 05/03/2014 12:42 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 3.5.2014 03:07, Noah Misch wrote:
>>> More coverage of non-gcc compilers would be an asset to the buildfarm.
>> Does that include non-gcc compilers on Linux/x86 platforms?
>>
>> Magpie is pretty much ded
On 05/03/2014 12:42 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 3.5.2014 03:07, Noah Misch wrote:
More coverage of non-gcc compilers would be an asset to the buildfarm.
Does that include non-gcc compilers on Linux/x86 platforms?
Magpie is pretty much dedicated to the buildfarm, and it's pretty much
doing noth
Tomas Vondra writes:
> Magpie is pretty much dedicated to the buildfarm, and it's pretty much
> doing nothing most of the time, so running the tests with other
> compilers (llvm/ic/...) would be just fine. Not sure how to do that,
> though. Should I run the tests with multiple configurations, or
On 3.5.2014 03:07, Noah Misch wrote:
> More coverage of non-gcc compilers would be an asset to the buildfarm.
Does that include non-gcc compilers on Linux/x86 platforms?
Magpie is pretty much dedicated to the buildfarm, and it's pretty much
doing nothing most of the time, so running the tests wit
On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 10:09:56AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-02 21:07:55 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > +1 for sending a call for help to -announce. I agree with your importance
> > estimates, particularly on the OS side. -1 for making code-level changes to
> > "desupport" a platform
It's a POWER 7 machine.
On 3. Mai 2014 10:31:34 MESZ, Dave Page wrote:
>Hamid@EDB; Can you please have someone configure anole to build git
>head as well as the other branches? Thanks.
>
>Andres, Andrew; I think the only other gap EDB could fill at the
>moment is RHEL6 on Power7 (though we do ha
Hamid@EDB; Can you please have someone configure anole to build git
head as well as the other branches? Thanks.
Andres, Andrew; I think the only other gap EDB could fill at the
moment is RHEL6 on Power7 (though we do have a couple of Power8 boxes
on order that should be here pretty soon). Dotterel
On 2014-05-02 21:07:55 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:04:01PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > There's pretty little coverage of non mainstream platforms/compilers in
> > the buildfarm atm. Maybe we should send an email on -announce asking for
> > new ones?
> > There's no cove
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:04:01PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> There's pretty little coverage of non mainstream platforms/compilers in
> the buildfarm atm. Maybe we should send an email on -announce asking for
> new ones?
> There's no coverage for OS-wise;
> * AIX (at all)
> * HP-UX (for master a
47 matches
Mail list logo
