| 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
| 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 |