| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
| Date: | 2022-02-13 17:13:17 |
| Message-ID: | 2597660.1644772397@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This is exactly why I'm not a huge fan of having ci stuff in the tree.
> It supposes that there's one right way to do a build, but in reality,
> different people want and indeed need to use different options for all
> kinds of reasons. That's the whole value of having things like
> configure and pg_config_manual.h. When we start arguing about whether
> or ci builds should use -DWRITE_READ_PARSE_PLAN_TREES we're inevitably
> into the realm where no choice is objectively better,
Right. Can we set things up so that it's not too painful to inject
custom build options into a CI build? I should think that at the
very least one needs to be able to vary the configure switches and
CPPFLAGS/CFLAGS.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chapman Flack | 2022-02-13 17:32:20 | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-02-13 17:10:08 | Re: buildfarm warnings |