Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improved parallel make support

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improved parallel make support
Date: 2010-11-16 21:41:33
Message-ID: 1289943693.31200.54.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

On mån, 2010-11-15 at 23:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's clear to me that we are very far from having a handle on what
> it'll really take to run parallel builds safely, and I am therefore
> now of the opinion that we ought to revert the patch. Hypothetical
> gains in parallelism are useless if we can't actually use parallel
> building reliably. We are currently worse off than before in terms of
> time to build the system.

We don't have to revert it, we just have to insert .NOTPARALLEL targets
into some places that are not properly "parallelized", thus effectively
restoring the behavior of the old for loop. I have attached a patch
that gets make -j 100+ working for me. Other platforms might need more
things, perhaps.

Btw., my original notes for this development were labeled "make make -k
work properly". So I would really like to keep that. It just turned
out that parallel make could benefit from the same changes, and it's a
better marketing name. ;-)

Attachment Content-Type Size
parallel-make-fix.patch text/x-patch 973 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-11-16 22:28:43 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improved parallel make support
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2010-11-16 11:45:12 pgsql: Send paramHandle to subprocesses as 64-bit on Win64

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-11-16 21:43:43 Re: unlogged tables
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-11-16 21:37:06 Re: unlogged tables