Re: [HACKERS] snapbuild woes

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-05-01 12:32:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But quite aside from the question of whether we can afford the cycles,
>> it seems like the wrong approach.  IMO the buildfarm is mainly for
>> verifying portability, not for trying to prove that race-like
>> conditions don't exist.  In most situations we're going out of our way
>> to ensure reproduceability of tests we add to the buildfarm sequence;
>> but it seems like this is looking for irreproducible results.

> Yea, I wondered about that upthread as well.  But the tests are quite
> useful nonetheless.  Wonder about adding them simply as a separate
> target.

I have no objection to adding more tests as a non-default target.
        regards, tom lane