| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(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 21:00:06 |
| Message-ID: | 15377.1347224406@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-09-09 21:18:23 | Re: build farm machine using <make -j 8> mixed results |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-09 20:54:49 | Re: build farm machine using <make -j 8> mixed results |