From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Does parallel make require guards against duplicate actions? |
Date: | 2010-01-05 15:38:41 |
Message-ID: | 9950.1262705921@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On mn, 2010-01-04 at 21:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The new implementation uses temp files that just have ".tmp" appended to
>> the target file name. If there is a risk that "make -j" will run the
>> same action twice in parallel, this isn't good enough. While it
>> wouldn't be too tough to add the PID to the scripts, I wonder whether
>> this comment is about a real problem or just a flight of fancy. It
>> doesn't seem to me that parallel make ought to be stupid enough to
>> do the same action twice. Anybody know?
> When you have only one makefile, this shouldn't happen if the rules are
> written correctly. But when the parallel make is initiated from the
> top, plus a decade-old buggy gmake, anything can happen. :-/ It's
> probably worth the small extra effort to be robust against this when the
> alternative is possible slightly butchered catalog files.
OK, I'll go fix that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Leonardo F | 2010-01-05 15:45:04 | Re: I: TODO: Allow substring/replace() to get/set bit values |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-01-05 15:31:19 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove too-smart-for-its-own-good optimization of not overwriting |