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 21:18:23 |
Message-ID: | 504D079F.9070905@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/09/2012 05:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> But then the answer could be, if you want to use parallel make, use a
>> version that's not broken.
> That's not a terribly practical answer for people who use the "make"
> supplied by their OS vendor, which is approximately 99.9% of people.
> It's even less practical for packagers, who don't have a choice about
> what tool set to use.
>
> Even if I wanted to use a locally-patched make, I'm not sure I'd trust a
> patch that doesn't seem to have been signed off on by any actual gmake
> developer or maintainer. That sort of cure is frequently worse than the
> disease.
>
>
Right.
Meanwhile, I have buildfarm animal crake building with the experimental
buildfarm code, and so far the results look good.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-09-10 03:29:01 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-09 21:00:06 | Re: build farm machine using <make -j 8> mixed results |