Re: Sending out a request for more buildfarm animals?

On 05/09/2014 11:25 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I guess it depends how likely we think that a different compiler will
>> change the behavior of the shared invalidation queue. Somebody else
>> would have to answer that. If not, then clearly we need only 5 animals.
> This may be heresy, but one of the things that drives me nuts about
> the buildfarm is that the names of the animals are all weird stuff
> that I've never heard of, and things on the same machine have
> completely unrelated names. Would it be crazy to think we might name
> all of these animals in some way that lets people associated them with
> each other? e.g. brownbear, blackbear, polarbear, grizzlybear,
> teddybear?
>

I've done that a bit in the past. At one stage all my Windows animals
were some sort of bat. There's nothing magical about the names. It's
just a text field and can be whatever we like. I initially started with
animals because it seemed like a category that was likely to supply a
virtually endless list of names.

We could maybe use more generic names to start with and then add
specialized names to extra animals on the same machine. But that's
really pretty much a hack, and something I would criticize if shown it
in a client's schema. If we want to be able to group machines on the
same box then we should have a database table or field that groups them
cleanly. That's going to require a bit of thought on how to do it with
minimal disruption.

cheers

andrew