Couple of minor buildfarm issues

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Couple of minor buildfarm issues
Date: 2005-07-25 03:06:50
Message-ID: 18933.1122260810@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

One pretty silly point: I notice that
http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/index.html
says "The build farm software does not currently run on Windows".
This is out of date no?

One not so trivial question: do we have a policy about system/compiler
updates on buildfarm members? Arguably, if I'm running say OS X 10.2
and I update to 10.4, it's no longer the same machine and we should
retire the buildfarm ID (the "animal") and issue a new one to denote
that the results aren't necessarily comparable. (I choose the OS X
update as an example with malice aforethought, since in fact our older
branches do not work on 10.4.) Ditto for, say, a major gcc update.

At the very least it seems we need some longitudinal tracking of OS and
compiler and other software versions (eg Python version is relevant to
plpython). As best I can see from here, the identification of a
buildfarm member's software versions is static, and that isn't very
realistic unless we enforce it to be so.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-07-25 03:46:02 Re: regression failure on stats test
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-07-25 01:32:19 Re: For review: Server instrumentation patch