From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st
In-reply-to: <aeKpFoT5qONuZ-AM@paquier.xyz>
References: <3ydjipcr7kbss57nvi67noplncqhesl5eyb6wgol4ccjxynspv@yatlykpribmm>
 <CA+TgmoZJzNQ_ATdOi+WUZwc=SO5GjGKBbEBrMyLCmDZpkJ1D0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <aeKpFoT5qONuZ-AM@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Sat, 18 Apr 2026 06:41:42 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3311980.1776462484.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 17:48:04 -0400
Message-ID: <3311981.1776462484@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3311981.1776462484%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 02:50:53PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This patch removes six lines of code and adds none. There are four
>> messages on the thread. We've done 14 complete CI runs. That might be
>> an extreme example, but I just don't know if repeatedly running CI on
>> small patches that aren't being actively updated is really what we
>> want to be doing.

> Yes, starting with a low threshold should have little impact.  I
> suspect that we could take it slow, say by testing much less patches
> that have a max of N lines touched (20~50?), and shave in resource
> usage.  This would not change much how useful the information provided
> is.

I think running a test promptly after a new patch submission is
useful, even for small patches.  I agree that the periodic re-tests
for bit-rot could be scaled back a lot.

			regards, tom lane