| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we use make -k on the buildfarm? |
| Date: | 2010-11-08 15:49:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4CD81C20.6070902@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/08/2010 10:27 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>> On 11/06/2010 01:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> What I *have* occasionally
>>>> wished for is that the buildfarm script would act more like make -k
>>>> with
>>>> respect to the various test stages.
>>
>>> I'm not sure that would be a great advance. Certainly, right now I'm
>>> going to be putting effort into the FTS stuff which I think should
>>> be much higher up your list of wants.
>>
>> Agreed, that would be far more useful.
>
> FTS stuff? Would that also include additions to the current SOAP
> interface of the buildfarm?
>
>
Possibly. I haven't looked at how we'll use it yet.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-08 15:55:15 | Re: postgresql scalability issue |
| Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2010-11-08 15:46:32 | Re: SQL2011 and writeable CTE |