Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improved parallel make support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
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 22:28:43
Message-ID: 7608.1289946523@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On mn, 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.

> 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.

If we don't have to revert it entirely, that's of course better. Please
apply what you've got.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-11-17 03:20:03 pgsql: Require VALUE keyword when extending an enum type. Based on a pa
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-11-16 21:41:33 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improved parallel make support

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2010-11-16 22:30:29 Re: unlogged tables
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-11-16 22:26:34 Re: possible concurrency bug or mistake in understanding read-committed behavior