Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Couple of minor buildfarm issues

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>,Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Couple of minor buildfarm issues
Date: 2005-07-27 02:27:25
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

> At one stage I thought of stealing some vertical space for 8 or 10 
> columns of 10 pixels or so to show the state of the most importand 
> build flag. I still might do that, if I can standardise the OS and 
> Compiler info so that they get shorter (e.g. is just knowing that we 
> have gcc n.m.o enough, or do we need the longer info produced by gcc 
> -v? I'm inclined to reduce it to n.m.o.) 

I have reduced some of the clutter from OS names/versions and compiler 
names/versions, and can reduce some more in the status column, that 
means we will be able to have a bunch of flags indicating what build 
criteria were used. I am mainly inclined to flag these:


If we have to drop any for reasons of space it would probably be the 
first two. Given the fact there are 9 of these I could make it a simple 
set of digits [1-9] and provide a legend, although that might not be 
quite so visually pleasing.

Any other bids?



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Michael FuhrDate: 2005-07-27 02:27:53
Subject: Re: RESULT_OID Bug
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2005-07-27 00:35:22
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group