Subject: Re: snapbuild woes
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
References: <20170413045812.GA2917375@tornado.leadboat.com>
 <20170417020404.GB2988768@tornado.leadboat.com>
 <20170418041657.hvwss6hz73ghozp5@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20170420000906.75t6uo7bof5pazrq@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <ad637c84-534d-b291-9b6c-458f1ff7f54b@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20170422053458.z7kmzopqdyi2tai4@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20170429214201.GB799290@rfd.leadboat.com> <4387.1493642807@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20170501160918.j27fvngzuwspg7d6@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <16845.1493656327@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20170501164011.5xqwxwlpdoc6kc4o@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <18057.1493658127@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
 Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>,
 David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>,
 pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <12f78f6b-3a18-2456-62f0-e2821213af1d@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 18:10:04 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <18057.1493658127@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 5/1/17 13:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2017-05-01 12:32:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> But quite aside from the question of whether we can afford the cycles,
>>> it seems like the wrong approach.  IMO the buildfarm is mainly for
>>> verifying portability, not for trying to prove that race-like
>>> conditions don't exist.  In most situations we're going out of our way
>>> to ensure reproduceability of tests we add to the buildfarm sequence;
>>> but it seems like this is looking for irreproducible results.
> 
>> Yea, I wondered about that upthread as well.  But the tests are quite
>> useful nonetheless.  Wonder about adding them simply as a separate
>> target.
> 
> I have no objection to adding more tests as a non-default target.

Well, the problem with nondefault targets is that they are hard to find
if you don't know them, and then they will rot.

Sure, we need a way to distinguish different classes of tests, but lets
think about the bigger scheme, too.  Ideas welcome.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers