| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: snapbuild woes |
| Date: | 2017-05-01 17:02:07 |
| Message-ID: | 18057.1493658127@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-05-01 12:32:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But quite aside from the question of whether we can afford the cycles,
>> it seems like the wrong approach. IMO the buildfarm is mainly for
>> verifying portability, not for trying to prove that race-like
>> conditions don't exist. In most situations we're going out of our way
>> to ensure reproduceability of tests we add to the buildfarm sequence;
>> but it seems like this is looking for irreproducible results.
> Yea, I wondered about that upthread as well. But the tests are quite
> useful nonetheless. Wonder about adding them simply as a separate
> target.
I have no objection to adding more tests as a non-default target.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-01 17:13:11 | Re: PQhost may return socket dir for network connection |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-01 16:53:43 | Re: transition table behavior with inheritance appears broken (was: Declarative partitioning - another take) |