X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7193BD1CA8E for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:18:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 34544-08 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:18:06 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 106F1D1B527 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 14:18:05 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 9034 invoked by uid 65534); 19 Nov 2003 18:18:05 -0000 Received: from dsl-082-082-166-244.arcor-ip.net (EHLO [192.168.2.136]) (82.82.166.244) by mail.gmx.net (mp023) with SMTP; 19 Nov 2003 19:18:05 +0100 X-Authenticated: #495269 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:18:28 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut X-X-Sender: peter@peter.localdomain To: Andrew Dunstan Cc: PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: Build farm In-Reply-To: <3FBBA5C8.1080108@dunslane.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/1066 X-Sequence-Number: 47354 Andrew Dunstan writes: > Maybe it wouldn't be of great value to PostgreSQL. And maybe it would. I > have an open mind about it. I don't think incompleteness is an argument > against it, though. If you want to do it, by all means go for it. I'm sure it would give everyone a fuzzy feeling to see the green lights everywhere. But realistically, don't expect any significant practical benefits, such cutting beta time by 10%. The Samba build daemon suite is pretty good. We have a couple of those hosts in our office in fact. (I think they're building PostgreSQL regularly as well.) A tip: You might find that adopting the source code of the Samba suite to PostgreSQL is harder than writing a new one. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net