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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de>
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, 04 Apr 2024 10:36:41 -0400
Message-ID: <545893.1712241401@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c2e81ddf-747a-420f-ab7f-1c545c8bc59c@technowledgy.de>
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>

Wolfgang Walther <walther@technowledgy.de> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut:
>> I think SanityCheck should run a simple, "average" environment, like the 
>> current Debian one.  Otherwise, niche problems with musl or multi-arch 
>> or whatever will throw off the entire build pipeline.

> I do agree: SanityCheck doesn't feel like the right place to put this. 
> But on the other side.. if it really fails to *build* with musl, then it 
> shouldn't make a difference whether you will be notified about that 
> immediately or later in the CI pipeline. It certainly needs the fewest 
> additional resources to put it there.

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.  One buildfarm member that's failing does not halt
progress altogether, so it's not even in the same ballpark of
being as critical.  So I agree with Peter that SanityCheck had
better use a very common, vanilla environment.

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.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (10+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <545893.1712241401@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../545893.1712241401@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/545893.1712241401@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, walther@technowledgy.de, peter@eisentraut.org, andres@anarazel.de, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm
  In-Reply-To: <545893.1712241401@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* 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