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

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:

Reply via email to