On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 14:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > On 09/09/2012 02:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> And the answer is ... it's a gmake bug.
>
> > Thanks for pursuing this. Whether or not it masks the underlying
> > problem, it's still something we should do, no? In fact, it seems to me
> > like this makes it even less worth trying to do anything better.
>
> Yeah, exactly.
But then the answer could be, if you want to use parallel make, use a
version that's not broken.