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

On 11/06/2010 01:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

That would be a significant architectural change. I'm not sure how many
steps we could run this way.

Here's the list of tests from a recent run, leaving out stopping and
starting the installed postmaster, and locale specifiers:

SCM-checkout
configure
make
check
make-contrib
make-install
install-contrib
initdb
install-check
pl-install-check
contrib-install-check
ecpg-check

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 than anything that comes after. I
think that's about the limit of what we could sensibly relax

I'm not sure that would be a great advance. Certainly, right now I'm
going to be putting effort into the FTS stuff which I think should be
much higher up your list of wants.

cheers

andrew