I wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> Not worse, and still not enough... bowerbird complained again:
>> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=bowerbird=2016-04-25%2002%3A13%3A54
> That's a different symptom that seems unrelated:
> cannot remove
Michael Paquier writes:
> Not worse, and still not enough... bowerbird complained again:
> http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=bowerbird=2016-04-25%2002%3A13%3A54
That's a different symptom that seems unrelated:
cannot remove directory for
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I took a second look at the above-quoted Microsoft documentation, and
> noticed that it specifies that this error occurs when another application
> is *bound* to the target address. If by that they mean that the other
> app
I wrote:
> However, it's still not entirely clear what is the root cause of the
> failure and whether a patch along the discussed lines would prevent its
> recurrence. Looking at TranslateSocketError, it seems we must be seeing
> an underlying error code of WSAEACCES. A little googling says that
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>>> And this gives the patch attached, just took the time to hack it.
>
>> I think this is a good idea, but (1) I'm inclined not to restrict it to
>> Windows,
I wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> And this gives the patch attached, just took the time to hack it.
> I think this is a good idea, but (1) I'm inclined not to restrict it to
> Windows, and (2) I think we should hold off applying it until we've seen
> a failure or
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Michael Paquier
>> wrote:
>>> IO::Socket::INET is another option, but I am not seeing it in perl <
>>> 5.12,
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
>> IO::Socket::INET is another option, but I am not seeing it in perl <
>> 5.12, and that's not part of ActivePerl, which makes life harder on
>> Windows.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> IO::Socket::INET is another option, but I am not seeing it in perl <
> 5.12, and that's not part of ActivePerl, which makes life harder on
> Windows. Socket is available on both. Does that address your concerns?
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> 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
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Michael Paquier writes:
> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> If there's other stuff using high ports on a particular buildfarm
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> If there's other stuff using high ports on a particular buildfarm machine,
>>> you'd expect
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Tom Lane 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
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> While we wait to see if that actually helps give useful errors,
> I had a thought about what may be happening here. PostgresNode.pm
> picks a random high port number and tests to see if it's free using
> pg_isready, with
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think the reason why we're getting "No error" instead of a useful
>>> strerror report is
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Some of the Windows buildfarm members occasionally fail like this:
> >
> > LOG: could not bind IPv4 socket: No error
> > HINT: Is
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Some of the Windows buildfarm members occasionally fail like this:
>
> LOG: could not bind IPv4 socket: No error
> HINT: Is another postmaster already running on port 64470? If not, wait
a few seconds and retry.
>
Some of the Windows buildfarm members occasionally fail like this:
LOG: could not bind IPv4 socket: No error
HINT: Is another postmaster already running on port 64470? If not, wait a few
seconds and retry.
WARNING: could not create listen socket for "127.0.0.1"
FATAL: could not create any
19 matches
Mail list logo