Prev: logistics for beta3
Next: t_self as system column
From: Alvaro Herrera on 5 Jul 2010 13:23
Excerpts from Chris Browne's message of lun jul 05 12:33:49 -0400 2010:

> 3. Some problems checking status.
>
> i) Status Line: 491 bad ts parameter - [timestamp omitted] is in the future
>
> I know my clock's reasonable - ntp is reporting I'm within 0.25s of
> some stratum 2 nodes. Is it possible that the buildfarm server is
> ill-synced?

I asked around and was told that the server is in sync currently. It
has been known to be out of sync before; if this problem still comes up,
maybe there's a software bug or something.

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Andrew Dunstan on 5 Jul 2010 14:12


Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Chris Browne's message of lun jul 05 12:33:49 -0400 2010:
>
>
>> 3. Some problems checking status.
>>
>> i) Status Line: 491 bad ts parameter - [timestamp omitted] is in the future
>>
>> I know my clock's reasonable - ntp is reporting I'm within 0.25s of
>> some stratum 2 nodes. Is it possible that the buildfarm server is
>> ill-synced?
>>
>
> I asked around and was told that the server is in sync currently. It
> has been known to be out of sync before; if this problem still comes up,
> maybe there's a software bug or something.
>
>


This discussion really belongs on pgbuildfarm-members, I think.

I have added a small fudge factor to the time test - let's see if that
changes things.

cheers

andrew



--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: logistics for beta3
Next: t_self as system column