Re: build farm machine using mixed results

On 09/08/2012 07:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> I have just repeated this on an absolutely fresh up to date F17 machine,
>> with no symlink stuff in play.
>> Steps to recreate:
>>      CC="ccache gcc" ../postgres/configure --enable-depend --enable-debug
>>      --enable-cassert --with-perl --with-python --with-tcl --with-libxml
>>      --with-libxslt -with-openssl --with-gssapi --with-pam --with-ldap
>>      make -j 4
> Huh ... that recipe works (er, fails) for me too, at least some of the
> time.  I wonder what exactly is the key difference between the working
> and failing cases?
>
> 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, because there are several reasons not
> to run its sub-makes in parallel:
>
> * preproc/Makefile casually does this:
>
> ../ecpglib/typename.o: ../ecpglib/typename.c
>     $(MAKE) -C $(dir $@) $(notdir $@)
>
> which is very likely to screw up any make proceeding in parallel in
> ecpglib.
>
> * compatlib and ecpglib will equally casually invoke "make all" in
> other subdirectories; ditto.
>
> And that's not even counting the bison-output problem you were seeing.
> I'm not entirely sure what's causing that, but I'm suspicious that the
> ultimate cause is the extra rules for the "all...recurse" targets in
> ecpg/Makefile, which look like they could result in additional instances
> of multiple make processes running in the same subdirectory.
>
> After adding the .NOTPARALLEL marker, I don't see these failures
> anymore.
>
>             

Well, I'm glad it's not just me. :-)

This fix works for me too.

I guess it should be applied back to 9.1, when it looks like we started 
using .NOTPARALLEL


cheers

andrew