Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment
Date
Msg-id 4C63F21C.4070405@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
<br /><br /> On 08/12/2010 08:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: <blockquote
cite="mid:1281617034.4463.7.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com"type="cite"><pre wrap="">On ons, 2010-08-11 at 15:06 -0400,
AndrewDunstan wrote:
 
</pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">You original email said:
       For some historic reasons, I have my local scripts set up so       that they build development instances using
thehardcoded port       65432.
 

I think my response would be "Don't do that".
</pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
Do you have a concrete suggestion for a different way to handle it?


</pre></blockquote><br /> Well, I do all my builds under a common directory, and my setup shell script has stuff like
thisto choose a port:<br /><br /><blockquote>for port in `seq -w 5701 5799` ; do<br />    grep -q --
"--with-pgport=$port"$base/*/config.log || break<br /> done<br /><br /></blockquote> It's worked fairly well for me for
aboutfive years now. No doubt there could be many variations on this theme.<br /><br /> cheers<br /><br /> andrew<br /> 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Regression tests versus the buildfarm environment
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch