| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |
| Date: | 2010-08-11 19:06:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4C62F4A2.5030006@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/11/2010 02:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Even if you don't, changing this would only mean that you
>> couldn't safely run "make check" concurrently in multiple branches.
> That's exactly the point. The original discussion is here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/491D9935.9010200@gmx.net
>
You original email said:
For some historic reasons, I have my local scripts set up so that
they build development instances using the hardcoded port 65432.
I think my response would be "Don't do that".
Having said that, maybe we could reasonably use something like
DEF_PGPORT + 10 * major_version + minor_version in the calculation and
advise buildfarm members with multiple animals to keep their port ranges
say, 200 or more apart.
But maybe we should just stick with my earlier advice :-)
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PostgreSQL - Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2010-08-11 19:31:31 | Re: "micro bucket sort" ... |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-08-11 18:47:58 | Re: string_to_array with an empty input string |