Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4C62F4A2.5030006@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment
Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
<br /><br /> On 08/11/2010 02:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:1281550347.26522.13.camel@vanquo.pezone.net"type="cite"><br /><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">Even if youdon't, changing this would only mean that you couldn't safely run "make check" concurrently in multiple branches. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap=""> That's exactly the point. The original discussion is here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/491D9935.9010200@gmx.net">http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/491D9935.9010200@gmx.net</a> </pre></blockquote><br /><br /> You original email said:<br /><br /><blockquote><tt>For some historic reasons, I have mylocal scripts set up so that they </tt><tt>build development instances using the hardcoded port 65432.<br /></tt></blockquote><br/> I think my response would be "Don't do that".<br /><br /> Having said that, maybe we could reasonablyuse something like DEF_PGPORT + 10 * major_version + minor_version in the calculation and advise buildfarm memberswith multiple animals to keep their port ranges say, 200 or more apart.<br /><br /> But maybe we should just stickwith my earlier advice :-)<br /><br /> cheers<br /><br /> andrew<br /><br /><br />
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: