From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Subject: Re: longfin and tamandua aren't too happy but I'm not sure why
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoY0KkYmBO1hZOqwO3MJvac=H_qVEvrLRs2guZcASR_HwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CA+TgmoYO5ee6EWhbxz+TE9hcSDONCJvczPNv--33Uk8Xd9tMHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220927200712.GH6256@telsasoft.com> <3825454.1664310917@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <3837430.1664311847@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3843686.1664314154@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAFiTN-tJqU-e2r1Q2sS65TacA-Yorgzhy1cgukaCwu1v2SSm3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFiTN-s8coid0OE54091Yo37+gdzDr-O_4RDjwiDUEcN4_cpww@mail.gmail.com>
 <3889343.1664342078@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKG+2w+7EmPrvXRf8GJS-2GbBTbaAEPRfrCJCSnMP2+ogAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoY0KkYmBO1hZOqwO3MJvac=H_qVEvrLRs2guZcASR_HwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 28 Sep 2022 08:26:53 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4033180.1664395633.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:07:13 -0400
Message-ID: <4033181.1664395633@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4033181.1664395633%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Yeah, I suppose I have to get in the habit of looking at CI before
> committing anything. It's sort of annoying to me, though. Here's a
> list of the follow-up fixes I've so far committed:

> 1. headerscheck
> 2. typos
> 3. pg_buffercache's meson.build
> 4. compiler warning
> 5. alignment problem
> 6. F_INTEQ/F_OIDEQ problem

> CI caught (1), (3), and (4). The buildfarm caught (1), (5), and (6).
> The number of buildfarm failures that I would have avoided by checking
> CI is less than the number of extra things I had to fix to keep CI
> happy, and the serious problems were caught by the buildfarm, not by
> CI.

That seems like an unfounded complaint.  You would have had to fix
(3) and (4) in any case, on some time schedule or other.  I agree
that it'd be good if CI did some 32-bit testing so it could have
caught (5) and (6), but that's being worked on.

> So I guess the way you're supposed to know that you need to
> update meson.build that is by looking at CI, but CI is also the only
> reason it's necessary to carry about meson.build in the first place.

Not so.  People are already using meson in preference to the makefiles
for some things, I believe.  And we're expecting that meson will
supplant the MSVC scripts pretty soon and the makefiles eventually.

> And like the existing buildfarm, it's severely under-documented.

That complaint I agree with.  A wiki page is a pretty poor substitute
for in-tree docs.

			regards, tom lane