From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |
Date: | 2010-08-11 15:53:37 |
Message-ID: | 4C62C781.1090004@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/11/2010 11:42 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2010-08-11 at 10:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> One of us is missing something. I didn't say to run the checks using
>> the
>>> configured port. I had in mind something like:
>>> port = 0xC000 | ((PG_VERSION_NUM + DEF_PGPORT)& 0x3FFF);
>> Oh, I see, modify the DEF_PGPORT don't just use it as-is. OK, except
>> that I think something like the above is still pretty risky for the
>> buildfarm, because you would still have conflicts for assorted
>> combinations of version numbers and branch_port settings.
>>
>> How about just this:
>>
>> port = 0xC000 | (DEF_PGPORT& 0x3FFF);
> The version number was put in there intentionally, for developers who
> work on multiple branches at once. That's the whole reason this code
> exists. Please don't remove it.
>
Do they run "make check" by hand simultaneously on multiple branches?
That's the only way you'd get a collision here, I think.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-11 15:55:52 | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-08-11 15:53:22 | Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment |