From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 01:26:35 |
Message-ID: | 1347153995.6563.5.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 19:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Anyway, what I notice is that I get different types of failures, but
> they are all under ecpg/. What I think we need to do is insert
> .NOTPARALLEL in ecpg/Makefile,
I'd hate that, because the ecpg build is one of the slowest parts of the
build, so de-parallelizing it would slow down everything quite a bit.
> because there are several reasons not
> to run its sub-makes in parallel:
>
> * preproc/Makefile casually does this:
>
> ../ecpglib/typename.o: ../ecpglib/typename.c
> $(MAKE) -C $(dir $@) $(notdir $@)
>
> which is very likely to screw up any make proceeding in parallel in
> ecpglib.
That should probably be fixed by symlinking the source file and building
it in the preproc directory.
> And that's not even counting the bison-output problem you were seeing.
> I'm not entirely sure what's causing that, but I'm suspicious that the
> ultimate cause is the extra rules for the "all...recurse" targets in
> ecpg/Makefile, which look like they could result in additional instances
> of multiple make processes running in the same subdirectory.
I think the point of these targets is exactly to prevent that.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-09-09 01:42:57 | Re: Supporting plpython 2+3 builds better |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-09-09 01:20:30 | Re: Python version dependency in plpython regression tests |