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: 2012-09-09 15:14:19
Message-ID: 504CB24B.70308@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 09/09/2012 03:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 19:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Anyway, what I notice is that I get different types of failures, but
>>> they are all under ecpg/. What I think we need to do is insert
>>> .NOTPARALLEL in ecpg/Makefile,
>> I'd hate that, because the ecpg build is one of the slowest parts of the
>> build, so de-parallelizing it would slow down everything quite a bit.
> There's only one bit of it that's slow, which is the bison build +
> preproc.c compile, which is necessarily serial anyway. So I think
> trying to avoid .NOTPARALLEL there is a complete waste of effort.
> But if you wanna fix it some other way, step right up.

Yeah. I am going to add a config parameter to the buildfarm to allow
parallelism for the "make" and "make contrib" stages, but I'm not going
to release it until this is fixed.

(I suppose this is also a lesson to me that I should not ignore things
like this that annoy me persistently as I did with these failures until
Robert Creager started this discussion. It just didn't seem important
enough.)

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-09-09 15:15:56 Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Previous Message Amit kapila 2012-09-09 08:06:36 Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol