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
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 |