Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nQBek-0007M5-0E for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 17:23:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nQBei-0001Ay-E5 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 17:23:52 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nQBei-0001Ao-59 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 17:23:52 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nQBee-0002cW-D0 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 17:23:51 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 224HNhlb3892342; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:23:43 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Thomas Munro , Bharath Rupireddy , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Regression tests failures on Windows Server 2019 - on master at commit # d816f366b In-reply-to: <20220304171014.7rubwmslcvcqgcwv@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <3850536.1646405668@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20220304171014.7rubwmslcvcqgcwv@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Fri, 04 Mar 2022 09:10:14 -0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3892340.1646414623.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 12:23:43 -0500 Message-ID: <3892341.1646414623@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > On 2022-03-04 09:54:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I find it a little suspicious that startcreate is merrily starting >> the postmaster on port 5432, without concern for the possibility >> that that port is in use or blocked by a packet filter. > It's a container that's just created for that run, so there shouldn't be > anything else running. We also see that the server successfully starts: True, so the port was free. The postmaster wouldn't know whether there's a relevant packet filter though. The reason I'm harping on this is that it's hard to see why this postmaster start would fail before anything was actually done, when several previous starts on other ports behaved just fine. Actually ... looking closer at the failure log: [09:41:50.589] Checking plpgsql [09:41:50.608] (using postmaster on Unix socket, default port) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [09:41:50.608] =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D dropping databas= e "pl_regression" =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [09:41:52.731] psql: error: connection to server at "localhost" (::1), por= t 5432 failed: Connection refused (0x0000274D/10061) [09:41:52.731] Is the server running on that host and accepting TCP/IP co= nnections? [09:41:52.731] connection to server at "localhost" (127.0.0.1), port 5432 = failed: Connection refused (0x0000274D/10061) [09:41:52.731] Is the server running on that host and accepting TCP/IP co= nnections? pg_regress thinks the postmaster is listening to a Unix socket. Maybe it's *only* listening to a Unix socket. In any case, psql has very clearly not been told to use a Unix socket. Something is not wired up correctly there. regards, tom lane