Re: build farm machine using <make -j 8> mixed results

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Creager <robert(at)logicalchaos(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: build farm machine using <make -j 8> mixed results
Date: 2012-09-05 00:51:03
Message-ID: 5046A1F7.1010506@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 09/04/2012 08:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Frankly, I have had enough failures of parallel make that I think doing
>> this would generate a significant number of non-repeatable failures (I
>> had one just the other day that took three invocations of make to get
>> right). So I'm not sure doing this would advance us much, although I'm
>> open to persuasion.
> Really? I routinely use -j4 for building, and it's been a long time
> since I've seen failures. I can believe that for instance "make check"
> in contrib would have a problem running in parallel, but the build
> process per se seems reliable enough from here.
>
>

Both cases were vpath builds, which is what I usually use, if that's a
useful data point.

Maybe I run on lower level hardware than you do. I saw this again this
afternoon after I posted the above. In both cases this was the machine
that runs the buildfarm's crake. I'll try to get a handle on it.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-09-05 00:54:22 Re: pg_upgrade del/rmdir path fix
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-09-05 00:46:53 Re: pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows