Обсуждение: initdb in current cvs head broken?

I am trying to generate a patch with respect to the current CVS head. So
ai rsynced the tree, then did cvs up and installed the db. However, when
I did initdb on a data directory it is stuck:

It is stuck after printing creating template1
creating template1 database in /home/postgres/data/base/1 ... 

I did strace  

$ strace -p 9852
Process 9852 attached - interrupt to quit
waitpid(9864,

then I  straced 9864

$ strace -p 9864
Process 9864 attached - interrupt to quit
semop(8060958, 0xbff36fee,
$ ps aux|grep 9864   
postgres  9864  1.5  1.3  37296  6816 pts/1    S+   07:51
0:02 /usr/local/pgsql/bin/postgres --boot -x1 -F


Seems like a bug to me. Is the tree stable only after commit fests and I
should not use the unstable tree for generating patches?

Thanks,
-Sushant.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Sushant Sinha <sushant354@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Seems like a bug to me. Is the tree stable only after commit fests and I
> should not use the unstable tree for generating patches?
>

I quickly tried on my repo and its working fine. (Well it could be a
bit out of sync with the head).

Usually, the tree may get a bit inconsistent during the active period,
but its not very common. I've seen committers doing a good job before
checking in any code and making sure it works fine (atleast initdb and
regression tests).

I would suggest doing a clean build at your end once again.

Thanks,
Pavan

-- 
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sushant Sinha wrote:
> I am trying to generate a patch with respect to the current CVS head. So
> ai rsynced the tree, then did cvs up and installed the db. However, when
> I did initdb on a data directory it is stuck:
>
>
>   
[snip]
> Seems like a bug to me. Is the tree stable only after commit fests and I
> should not use the unstable tree for generating patches?
>
>
>   


If it were really broken then the buildfarm would be showing red:
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status.pl

It isn't, so I suspect the problem is at your end.

cheers

andrew

You are right. I did not do make clean last time. After make clean, make
all, and make install it works fine. 

-Sushant.

On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:55 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Sushant Sinha <sushant354@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Seems like a bug to me. Is the tree stable only after commit fests and I
> > should not use the unstable tree for generating patches?
> >
> 
> I quickly tried on my repo and its working fine. (Well it could be a
> bit out of sync with the head).
> 
> Usually, the tree may get a bit inconsistent during the active period,
> but its not very common. I've seen committers doing a good job before
> checking in any code and making sure it works fine (atleast initdb and
> regression tests).
> 
> I would suggest doing a clean build at your end once again.
> 
> Thanks,
> Pavan
> 

Sushant Sinha <sushant354@gmail.com> writes:
> You are right. I did not do make clean last time. After make clean, make
> all, and make install it works fine. 

My ironclad rule for syncing with CVS is
make distcleancvs updatereconfigure, rebuild

The cycles you save by taking shortcuts all vanish in trying to debug
the occasional problem.  Especially since that's human time, not machine
cycles (which can easily be overlapped with, say, reading mail).

Using configure --enable-depend (which is not the default) will prevent
certain categories of problems, but I don't trust it to solve them all.
        regards, tom lane