Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 02:57:13AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Maybe we should think about filtering the noise. Like, say, discarding
every report from mongoose that involves an icc core dump ...
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=mongoose&dt=2007-03-20%2006:30:01
Maybe a simple compromise would be being able to setup a set of regexes
that search the output and set a flag it that string is found. If you
find the string, it gets marked with a flag, which means that when you
look at mongoose, any failures that don't have the flag become easier
to spot.
It also means that once you've found a common failure, you can create
the regex and then any other failures with the same string get tagged
also, making unexplained ones easier to spot.
You need to show first that this is an adequate tagging mechanism, both
in tagging things adequately and in not picking up false positives,
which would make things worse, not better. And even then you need
someone to do the analysis to create the regex.
The buildfarm works because it leverages our strength, namely automating
things. But all the tagging suggestions I've seen will involve regular,
repetitive and possibly boring work, precisely the thing we are not good
at as a group.
this is probably true - however as a buildfarm admin I occasionally
wished i had a way to invalidate reports generated from my boxes to
prevent someone wasting time to investigate them (like errors caused by
system upgrades,configuration problems or other local issues).
But I agree that it might be difficult to make that "manual tagging"
process scalable and reliable enough so that it really is an improvment
over what we have now.
Stefan
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
