On 07/02/2014 10:58 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:35:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >>>> I'm also not sure how to designate these machines. The buildfarm server >>>> metadata isn't designed for auto-updating build platforms. But no doubt if >>>> necessary we can come up with something. >> >>> Off-hand, it seems like we could give it a try, and abandon the effort >>> if it proves too problematic. >> >> If a majority of buildfarm critters were like that, it'd be too confusing. >> But as long as they are few, not all following the same update stream, >> and well labeled in the buildfarm status page, I think we could cope. > > +1. The buildfarm has one such member already, anchovy, and I recall it > having given at least one helpful forewarning. It shows as "Arch Linux > testing [updated daily]", which is sufficient annotation for me. Its failure > rate has been low; member-caused failures due to ENOSPC and other miscellany > are a good deal more common.
Yep - I see early notice of new gcc "special" behaviour, etc as quite valuable. If we're dubious about a result, we wait a few days and see if it goes away on its own. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
