Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st
Date: 2026-04-17 21:48:04
Message-ID: 3311981.1776462484@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 02:50:53PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This patch removes six lines of code and adds none. There are four
>> messages on the thread. We've done 14 complete CI runs. That might be
>> an extreme example, but I just don't know if repeatedly running CI on
>> small patches that aren't being actively updated is really what we
>> want to be doing.

> Yes, starting with a low threshold should have little impact. I
> suspect that we could take it slow, say by testing much less patches
> that have a max of N lines touched (20~50?), and shave in resource
> usage. This would not change much how useful the information provided
> is.

I think running a test promptly after a new patch submission is
useful, even for small patches. I agree that the periodic re-tests
for bit-rot could be scaled back a lot.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2026-04-17 21:50:57 Re: PostgreSQL and OpenSSL 4.0.0
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2026-04-17 21:47:21 Re: test: avoid redundant standby catchup in 049_wait_for_lsn