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

Hi,

On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 at 05:46, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2026-06-03 19:36:29 -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Concretely: I propose that we bail out of the setup step if the
> > > repository isn't postgres/postgres, just for the initial committed
> > > version, and then we can test what this actually does in practice to
> > > our downstream forks. If I'm being overly paranoid, we can immediately
> > > remove it; else we can add an opt-in. But adding it after the fact
> > > won't protect anyone who synced up in the interim.
> >
> > We clearly would need to have an opt-out from that from the get-go, otherwise
> > I couldn't even test that things are still working before merging, and
> > postgresql-cfbot won't work... Thomas has it otherwise mostly ready to go
> > (this thread actually is being tested automatically already).
>
>
> Attached is a possible implementation of this. If the PG_CI_ENABLED
> repository variable is not set to 1, we run as little CI as possible.
>
> To make that less confusing, emit a summary whenever we skip running CI, with
> a message explaining how to enable CI. See e.g. the bottom of
> https://github.com/anarazel/postgres/actions/runs/26926523027
>
> Unfortunately this summary is only visible when logged into github.
>
>
> Attached is a squashed version of my earlier changes. In addition:
>
> - src/tools/ci/README was updated with the knowledge that the workflow
> may or may not be enabled in a fork
>
> - a few typos etc were fixed
>
> - the change above was added as a third patch
>
>
> I'm on the fence whether we want the third change or not.

0001 LGTM. I really liked the slicing solution on Windows VS.

0002:

Nitpick: There are two mentions of GitHub Actions with lowercase in
the 'ci_macports_packages.sh', perhaps we can update them with 'GitHub
Actions'.

0003:

I think it makes sense to be explicit about this. I don't think this
CI will cause any problems (to users) since Github Actions is free on
public repositories but it is better safe than sorry. Also, from
discussion on PostgreSQL Hacking Discord channel:

Thomas Munro mentioned:

> Maybe "Report if CI is not enabled in this repository" would be
slightly clearer. it's not really a warning, it's just stating a
fact. or maybe "Report if PG_CI_ENABLED is not set to 1 in this
repository" even?

I liked 'Report if CI is not enabled in this repository'.

Jelte Fennema-Nio mentioned:

> I think being opt-in is fine. I'd actually fail the build though, instead of succeeding. People are probably more inclined to click the red cross next to a commit than a green checkmark.

I think this makes sense too. Green color can be seen as it is
expected and nothing wrong.

--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft