Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment

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: 2010-08-12 13:07:40
Message-ID: 4C63F21C.4070405@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/12/2010 08:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2010-08-11 at 15:06 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> You original email said:
>>
>> For some historic reasons, I have my local scripts set up so
>> that they build development instances using the hardcoded port
>> 65432.
>>
>> I think my response would be "Don't do that".
> Do you have a concrete suggestion for a different way to handle it?
>
>

Well, I do all my builds under a common directory, and my setup shell
script has stuff like this to choose a port:

for port in `seq -w 5701 5799` ; do
grep -q -- "--with-pgport=$port" $base/*/config.log || break
done

It's worked fairly well for me for about five years now. No doubt there
could be many variations on this theme.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2010-08-12 13:16:49 Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-08-12 12:43:54 Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment