Re: Should we use make -k on the buildfarm?

<br /><br /> On 11/06/2010 01:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:21127.1289063239@sss.pgh.pa.us"
type="cite"><prewrap="">What I *have* occasionally
 
wished for is that the buildfarm script would act more like make -k with
respect to the various test stages.  That is, not abandon the whole test
after one stage fails, but allow stages that don't logically depend on
the failed one to proceed.  But I'm not sure how hard that would be ---
quite aside from coding complexity, it would mean that you could have
more than one failing stage, and I don't know how you'd show that in the
dashboard. 
</pre></blockquote><br /> That would be a significant architectural change. I'm not sure how many steps we could run
thisway. <br /><br /> Here's the list of tests from a recent run, leaving out stopping and starting the installed
postmaster,and locale specifiers:<br /><br /><blockquote>SCM-checkout      <br /> configure      <br /> make      <br
/>check      <br /> make-contrib<br /> make-install     <br /> install-contrib     <br /> initdb     <br />
install-check    <br /> pl-install-check     <br /> contrib-install-check     <br /> ecpg-check<br /></blockquote>
Currently,the implied dependency list is in this order. We could have "make-contrib" depend only on "make" rather than
"check","pl-install-check"  and "contrib-install-check" depend on "initdb", and "ecpg-check" depend on "make" rather
thananything that comes after. I think that's about the limit of what we could sensibly relax<br /><br /> I'm not sure
thatwould be a great advance. Certainly, right now I'm going to be putting effort into the FTS stuff which I think
shouldbe much higher up your list of wants.<br /><br /> cheers<br /><br /> andrew<br />