Re: headerscheck ccache support

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: headerscheck ccache support
Date: 2025-12-04 10:52:07
Message-ID: 17c471f6-5409-4574-98cf-dc90258840dc@eisentraut.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 28.11.25 14:10, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 28.11.25 13:59, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2025-Nov-28, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
>>
>>> I could not apply patches cleanly. Am I missing something?
>>
>> Yeah, I couldn't get `git am` or `git apply` to accept the patches
>> either, not even with -3.  However, `patch -p1` does accept it.  Weird.
>
> I had another commit in my local branch that I needed to get the actual
> compilations working, but which was unrelated to this discussion.
> Apparently, this created enough fuzz to break the subsequent patches.
> Here is the patch series again completely, but ignore the 0000 patch for
> now.

I have committed patches 0000 and 0001, which was the main subject of
this thread.

What do people think about patch 0002, which runs headerscheck and
cpluspluscheck in parallel on ci? It should save several seconds of
wall-clock time for that task, and I don't see any drawbacks, unless you
want to retain the specific previous output format for some reason.

I don't plan to pursue the other parallelization work (patch 0003) at
this time.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kirill Reshke 2025-12-04 10:56:46 Re: [PATCH] Add enable_copy_program GUC to control COPY PROGRAM
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2025-12-04 10:50:22 Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication