Re: build farm machine using mixed results
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: build farm machine using |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23330.1347204696@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на |
Re: build farm machine using |
Ответы |
Re: build farm machine using |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > On 09/09/2012 03:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >>> On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 19:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> Anyway, what I notice is that I get different types of failures, but >>>> they are all under ecpg/. What I think we need to do is insert >>>> .NOTPARALLEL in ecpg/Makefile, >>> I'd hate that, because the ecpg build is one of the slowest parts of the >>> build, so de-parallelizing it would slow down everything quite a bit. >> There's only one bit of it that's slow, which is the bison build + >> preproc.c compile, which is necessarily serial anyway. So I think >> trying to avoid .NOTPARALLEL there is a complete waste of effort. >> But if you wanna fix it some other way, step right up. > Yeah. I am going to add a config parameter to the buildfarm to allow > parallelism for the "make" and "make contrib" stages, but I'm not going > to release it until this is fixed. Well, why don't we stick .NOTPARALLEL in there for the moment, and then if Peter thinks of a better solution, he can revert that change in favor of something cleaner. I assume we need this for all active branches, if the buildfarm is going to be stressing it? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: