Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Frankly, I have had enough failures of parallel make that I think doing
> this would generate a significant number of non-repeatable failures (I
> had one just the other day that took three invocations of make to get
> right). So I'm not sure doing this would advance us much, although I'm
> open to persuasion.
Really? I routinely use -j4 for building, and it's been a long time
since I've seen failures. I can believe that for instance "make check"
in contrib would have a problem running in parallel, but the build
process per se seems reliable enough from here.
regards, tom lane