| 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.
| 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 |