pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 17:01:32 +0200
Message-ID: <12606570-50cc-4e66-9c5c-d9e61764551d@technowledgy.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <545893.1712241401@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4093813.1710899588@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+hUKGKNK5V8XwwJJZm36s3EUy8V51xu4XiE8=26n=Wq3OGd4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<4095435.1710900216@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+hUKGK2cSx3dveMqBD+E9N=zJ0WawBcbk_jnPqmdWBM0DT_3Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<477fa513-6bf0-456d-8d24-1e22a19df671@technowledgy.de>
	<ZfrmN4WHuJgD95fw@momjian.us>
	<CA+hUKGJzC4rr2Yr=QZyx9W83Wv=TVJHndKF1anjNLNXVUM7TqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<f98cd8de-1c66-491a-8409-e62c09932080@technowledgy.de>
	<20240322001948.atp2eetusylgjyw2@awork3.anarazel.de>
	<40543180-a0a2-495b-8d34-23b46c28f533@technowledgy.de>
	<20240326001447.wcatfvx45tkmizji@awork3.anarazel.de>
	<0a48d551-50e1-4bd3-8d46-8421e3b1b724@technowledgy.de>
	<cfd3d974-d3e7-4adf-9574-0094044e91a4@technowledgy.de>
	<7764f41f-29f6-428f-b40d-43ba2da38170@eisentraut.org>
	<c2e81ddf-747a-420f-ab7f-1c545c8bc59c@technowledgy.de>
	<545893.1712241401@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Tom Lane:
> That is not the concern here.  What I think Peter is worried about,
> and certainly what I'm worried about, is that a breakage in
> SanityCheck comprehensively breaks all CI testing for all Postgres
> developers.

You'd have to commit a failing patch first to break CI for all other 
developers. If you're only going to commit patches that pass those CI 
tasks, then this is not going to happen. Then it only becomes a question 
of how much feedback *you* get from a single CI run of your own patch.

> To be blunt, I do not think we need to test musl in the CI pipeline.
> I see it as one of the niche platforms that the buildfarm exists
> to test.

I don't really have an opinion on this. I'm fine with having musl in the 
buildfarm only. I don't expect the core build itself to fail with musl 
anyway, this has been working fine for years. Andres asked for it to be 
added to CI, so maybe he sees more value on top of just "building with 
musl"?

Best,

Wolfgang





view thread (10+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <12606570-50cc-4e66-9c5c-d9e61764551d@technowledgy.de>
Permalink:  ../12606570-50cc-4e66-9c5c-d9e61764551d@technowledgy.de/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/12606570-50cc-4e66-9c5c-d9e61764551d@technowledgy.de

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
  Cc: walther@technowledgy.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, peter@eisentraut.org, andres@anarazel.de, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm
  In-Reply-To: <12606570-50cc-4e66-9c5c-d9e61764551d@technowledgy.de>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox