Re: Cirrus-ci is lowering free CI cycles - what to do with cfbot, etc?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Cirrus-ci is lowering free CI cycles - what to do with cfbot, etc?
Date: 2023-08-23 21:02:51
Message-ID: 3557216.1692824571@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> On 23 Aug 2023, at 21:22, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> I think there's more effective ways to make this cheaper. The basic thing
>> would be to use libpq instead of forking of psql to make a connection
>> check.

> I had it in my head that not using libpq in pg_regress was a deliberate choice,
> but I fail to find a reference to it in the archives.

I have a vague feeling that you are right about that. Perhaps the
concern was that under "make installcheck", pg_regress might be
using a build-tree copy of libpq rather than the one from the
system under test. As long as we're just trying to ping the server,
that shouldn't matter too much I think ... unless we hit problems
with, say, a different default port number or socket path compiled into
one copy vs. the other? That seems like it's probably a "so don't
do that" case, though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2023-08-23 21:07:44 Re: PostgreSQL 16 release announcement draft
Previous Message Nazir Bilal Yavuz 2023-08-23 20:55:15 Re: Cirrus-ci is lowering free CI cycles - what to do with cfbot, etc?