

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Lockhart [mailto:lockhart@fourpalms.org] 
> Sent: 13 December 2001 05:58
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: 'pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org'; 'pgsql-cygwin@postgresql.org'
> Subject: Re: [CYGWIN] [HACKERS] Platform Testing - Cygwin
> 
> 
> > Having heard nothing on the list yet about the reported 
> unsuccessful 
> > parallel regression tests on Cygwin with 7.2b3, I thought 
> I'd have a 
> > play myself having found a spare few minutes.
> 
> Tom Lane has speculated that some optimizations around our 
> locking code (which had been redone for 7.2) might be the 
> culprit for problems in Cygwin as it apparently was for AIX. 
> He has since fixed the problems at least under AIX.
> 
> Could you repeat the test with 7.2b4 (out today??)?.
> 
>                     - Thomas

Right, 7.2b4 passes *all* tests both parallel and sequential on Windows 2000
Server. 

On XP Pro, and by the sounds of it, any other non-server releases of
Windows, parallel tests will fail randomly due to Winsock backlog limit of 5
on these systems (as pointed out by Jason Tishler and documented in
FAQ_MSWIN).

Regards, Dave.

Thu, 13 Dec 2001 14:21:08 -0000
Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Re: [HACKERS] Platform Testing - Cygwin
...
> Right, 7.2b4 passes *all* tests both parallel and sequential on Windows 2000
> Server.
> On XP Pro, and by the sounds of it, any other non-server releases of
> Windows, parallel tests will fail randomly due to Winsock backlog limit of 5
> on these systems (as pointed out by Jason Tishler and documented in
> FAQ_MSWIN).

So ignore the question I sent a minute ago. Thanks for the report!!

                    - Thomas

Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:16:15 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Platform Testing - Cygwin