Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mf3YK-0001Dt-EB for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 17:14:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mf3YJ-0003H7-BA for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 17:14:27 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mf3YJ-0003Gx-2w for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 17:14:27 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mf3YH-0003a2-12 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 17:14:26 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 19PHEJj14050294; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:14:19 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Robert Haas , Andrew Dunstan , Alvaro Herrera , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions In-reply-to: <20211025170657.ekufa7urdcyzpgdm@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <202110222351.3f42l5fgo3lw@alvherre.pgsql> <3783090.1635111977@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3883429.1635171820@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20211025170657.ekufa7urdcyzpgdm@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:06:57 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4050292.1635182059.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:14:19 -0400 Message-ID: <4050293.1635182059@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > On 2021-10-25 10:23:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> It seems like a fresh checkout from the repo would be little more expen= sive >> than the current copy-a-checkout process.) > I haven't looked in detail, but from what I've seen in the logs the > is-there-anything-new check is already not cheap, and does a checkout / = update > of the git directory. Yeah, you probably need a checkout to apply the rule about don't rebuild after documentation-only changes. But it seems like the case where the branch tip hasn't moved at all could be optimized fairly easily. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to add code for that given our current usage of the buildfarm; but if we were to start tracking branches that only change a couple of times a year, it would be. regards, tom lane