Re: ci: CCache churns through available space too quickly

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: ci: CCache churns through available space too quickly
Date: 2026-06-08 19:28:10
Message-ID: 3nm2jutcu6scsqvfu4auiwxz2hj4lhi3ciqzjb3n7haoj3ubds@7w4violnl3aw
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2026-06-08 19:10:46 +0300, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 at 17:59, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/src/tools/ci/gha_ccache_decide.py
> > > b/src/tools/ci/gha_ccache_decide.py
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 00000000000..920f7bf9685
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/src/tools/ci/gha_ccache_decide.py
> >
> > > + # If there were either barely any misses, or the cache hit ratio was high,
> > > + # there no point in generating a new cache entry. We have limited cache
> > > + # space.
> > > + should_save = misses > 10 and hit_pct < target_rate
> > >
> > > We consider misses here but we don't mention it
> >
> > I was trying to mention it, via "If there were either barely any misses".
>
> Sorry, what I meant was we don't mention in the logs, which is:
>
> + if not should_save:
> + print(f"hit rate {hit_pct} is above target of {target_rate},
> skip creating new cache entry")
> + return 0

Ah, makes sense.

I updated that, and after doing some minor polishing, pushed it.

Thanks for the quick review!

Greetings,

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Joao Foltran 2026-06-08 19:15:24 Re: [BUG] [PATCH] Allow physical replication slots to recover from archive after invalidation