Re: [HACKERS] Cleaner build output when not much has changed

2014-03-11 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:

 Gurjeet Singh wrote:
  On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
 
   Gurjeet Singh gurj...@singh.im writes:
I was looking for ways to reduce the noise in Postgres make output,
specifically, I wanted to eliminate the Nothing to be done for
 `all' 
messages, since they don't add much value, and just ad to the
 clutter.
  
   Why don't you just use make -s if you don't want to see that?
   The example output you show is not much less verbose than before.
 
  I have a shell function that now adds --no-print-directory to my make
  command. This patch combined with that switch makes the output really
 clean
  (at least from my perspective). Since the use of a command-line switch
 can
  be easily left to personal choice, I am not proposing to add that or its
  makefile-equivalent. But modifying the makefiles to suppress noise is not
  that everyone can be expected to do, and do it right.

 FWIW you can add a src/Makefile.custom file with this:

 all:
 @true

 and it will get rid of most noise.


As I noted in the first email in this chain, this causes a warning:

GNUmakefile:14: warning: overriding commands for target `all'
/home/gurjeet/dev/POSTGRES/src/Makefile.custom:2: warning: ignoring old
commands for target `all'

I have since settled for `make -s`. On slow builds it keeps me guessing for
a long time, without any indication of progress, but I've learned to live
with that.

Best regards,
-- 
Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/

EDB www.EnterpriseDB.com http://www.enterprisedb.com


Re: [HACKERS] Cleaner build output when not much has changed

2014-03-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Gurjeet Singh wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
 
  Gurjeet Singh gurj...@singh.im writes:
   I was looking for ways to reduce the noise in Postgres make output,
   specifically, I wanted to eliminate the Nothing to be done for `all' 
   messages, since they don't add much value, and just ad to the clutter.
 
  Why don't you just use make -s if you don't want to see that?
  The example output you show is not much less verbose than before.
 
 I have a shell function that now adds --no-print-directory to my make
 command. This patch combined with that switch makes the output really clean
 (at least from my perspective). Since the use of a command-line switch can
 be easily left to personal choice, I am not proposing to add that or its
 makefile-equivalent. But modifying the makefiles to suppress noise is not
 that everyone can be expected to do, and do it right.

FWIW you can add a src/Makefile.custom file with this:

all:
@true

and it will get rid of most noise.

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://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


Re: [HACKERS] Cleaner build output when not much has changed

2013-11-26 Thread Tom Lane
Gurjeet Singh gurj...@singh.im writes:
 I was looking for ways to reduce the noise in Postgres make output,
 specifically, I wanted to eliminate the Nothing to be done for `all' 
 messages, since they don't add much value, and just ad to the clutter.

Why don't you just use make -s if you don't want to see that?
The example output you show is not much less verbose than before.

I'm pretty suspicious of cute changes like this to the makefiles.
They too often have unexpected side-effects.  (I'm still pissed off
about having to manually remove objfiles.txt to get it to rebuild a .o
file, for instance.)

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] Cleaner build output when not much has changed

2013-11-26 Thread Gurjeet Singh
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:

 Gurjeet Singh gurj...@singh.im writes:
  I was looking for ways to reduce the noise in Postgres make output,
  specifically, I wanted to eliminate the Nothing to be done for `all' 
  messages, since they don't add much value, and just ad to the clutter.

 Why don't you just use make -s if you don't want to see that?
 The example output you show is not much less verbose than before.


I have a shell function that now adds --no-print-directory to my make
command. This patch combined with that switch makes the output really clean
(at least from my perspective). Since the use of a command-line switch can
be easily left to personal choice, I am not proposing to add that or its
makefile-equivalent. But modifying the makefiles to suppress noise is not
that everyone can be expected to do, and do it right.


 I'm pretty suspicious of cute changes like this to the makefiles.
 They too often have unexpected side-effects.  (I'm still pissed off
 about having to manually remove objfiles.txt to get it to rebuild a .o
 file, for instance.)


You mean the --enable-depend switch to ./configure is not sufficient to
force a rebuild on changed source code! With this switch, I have always
seen my builds do the right thing, whether I modify a .c file or a .h. I
personally have never been forced to remove objfiles.txt to solve a
build/make issue. (I primarily use VPATH builds, BTW).

Best regards,
-- 
Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/

EDB www.EnterpriseDB.com http://www.enterprisedb.com


Re: [HACKERS] Cleaner build output when not much has changed

2013-11-26 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote:

 I'm pretty suspicious of cute changes like this to the makefiles.
 They too often have unexpected side-effects.  (I'm still pissed off
 about having to manually remove objfiles.txt to get it to rebuild a .o
 file, for instance.)

Yeah, I've been bitten by that as well and I don't like it either.

A patch to use non-recursive make to construct the backend would be very
much appreciated.  We've talked about it at least two times, but no one
seems interested enough to put in the effort.

FWIW I'm also annoyed by the current make noise, but I don't support the
proposed patch.

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://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


Re: [HACKERS] Cleaner build output when not much has changed

2013-11-26 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 11/26/13, 1:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
 A patch to use non-recursive make to construct the backend would be very
 much appreciated.  We've talked about it at least two times, but no one
 seems interested enough to put in the effort.

References?


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] Cleaner build output when not much has changed

2013-11-26 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
 On 11/26/13, 1:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
  A patch to use non-recursive make to construct the backend would be very
  much appreciated.  We've talked about it at least two times, but no one
  seems interested enough to put in the effort.
 
 References?

What, you want me to dig up your own old threads?  Hopefully the search
is pretty awesome:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Pine.LNX.4.21.0007021307110.351-10@localhost.localdomain
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1299621866.19938.5.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net

:-)

-- 
Álvaro Herrerahttp://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