On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:35:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@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.
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
