Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-06-23 Thread Marco Atzeri
On 16/04/2014 18:55, Marco Atzeri wrote: On 16/04/2014 17:40, Tom Lane wrote: The bigger picture though is that this code isn't failing on the buildfarm. So what we need to ask is what's different about Marco's machine. good question. I checked again and I found that the fault is only on the

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-16 Thread Marco Atzeri
On 16/04/2014 17:40, Tom Lane wrote: The bigger picture though is that this code isn't failing on the buildfarm. So what we need to ask is what's different about Marco's machine. good question. I checked again and I found that the fault is only on the cygwin 64 bit build but not on the cygwin

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-16 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera writes: > I don't know if this is relevant, but perhaps we're defining the > constants in a way that conflicts with the values defined by cygwin. Hm, that's a thought, though I still don't see how it's relevant to the reported failure. Perhaps Cygwin is defining these constants so

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-16 Thread Marco Atzeri
On 16/04/2014 17:14, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Marco Atzeri wrote: On 13/04/2014 18:09, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: On 2014-04-12 16:35:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: In principle, that commit shouldn't have affected behavior for pg_hba entries with numeric address fields ... Hm. getad

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-16 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Marco Atzeri wrote: > On 13/04/2014 18:09, Tom Lane wrote: > >Andres Freund writes: > >>On 2014-04-12 16:35:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>>In principle, that commit shouldn't have affected behavior for pg_hba > >>>entries with numeric address fields ... > > > >>Hm. getaddrinfo.c has this bit: > >>

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-16 Thread Marco Atzeri
On 13/04/2014 18:09, Tom Lane wrote: Andres Freund writes: On 2014-04-12 16:35:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: In principle, that commit shouldn't have affected behavior for pg_hba entries with numeric address fields ... Hm. getaddrinfo.c has this bit: /* Unsupported flags. */ if

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-13 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2014-04-12 16:35:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> In principle, that commit shouldn't have affected behavior for pg_hba >> entries with numeric address fields ... > Hm. getaddrinfo.c has this bit: > /* Unsupported flags. */ > if (flags & NI_NAMEREQD) >

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-13 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-04-12 16:35:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2014-04-12 19:45:59 +0200, Marco Atzeri wrote: > >> so it is only failing on recent trunk > > > Does it work on a commit before > > fc752505a99a4e2c781a070d3d42a25289c22e3c? > > In principle, that commit shouldn't have

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-12 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2014-04-12 19:45:59 +0200, Marco Atzeri wrote: >> so it is only failing on recent trunk > Does it work on a commit before > fc752505a99a4e2c781a070d3d42a25289c22e3c? In principle, that commit shouldn't have affected behavior for pg_hba entries with numeric address fiel

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-12 Thread Marco Atzeri
On 12/04/2014 19:48, Andres Freund wrote: On 2014-04-12 19:45:59 +0200, Marco Atzeri wrote: - same test, few days ago, on trunk was fine so it is only failing on recent trunk Does it work on a commit before fc752505a99a4e2c781a070d3d42a25289c22e3c? E.g. f33a71a7865a1dd54f04b370e2637f88665f8d

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-12 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-04-12 19:45:59 +0200, Marco Atzeri wrote: > On 12/04/2014 19:11, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > >Why can't it resolve "localhost"? That's a local issue you need to fix. > > > >cheers > > > >andrew > > > > Andrew, > just to be clear > > - localhost is resolved to 127.0.0.1 > > - 127.0.0.1 is

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-12 Thread Marco Atzeri
On 12/04/2014 19:11, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Why can't it resolve "localhost"? That's a local issue you need to fix. cheers andrew Andrew, just to be clear - localhost is resolved to 127.0.0.1 - 127.0.0.1 is pingable - same test on 9.3.4 works All 135 tests passed. - same test, fe

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-12 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 04/12/2014 12:39 PM, Marco Atzeri wrote: Anyone seeing similar failure ? testing on latest $ git log |head commit 3c41b812c5578fd7bd5c2de42941012d7d56dde2 Author: Bruce Momjian Date: Thu Apr 10 17:16:22 2014 -0400 docs: psql '--' comments are not passed to the server C-style b

Re: [HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-12 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-04-12 18:39:54 +0200, Marco Atzeri wrote: > LOG: invalid IP address "127.0.0.1": Non-recoverable failure in name > resolution That sounds like a local setup problem. Is 127.0.0.1 pingable? Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Devel

[HACKERS] test failure on latest source

2014-04-12 Thread Marco Atzeri
Anyone seeing similar failure ? testing on latest $ git log |head commit 3c41b812c5578fd7bd5c2de42941012d7d56dde2 Author: Bruce Momjian Date: Thu Apr 10 17:16:22 2014 -0400 docs: psql '--' comments are not passed to the server C-style block comments are passed to the server. $ ca