Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iAK9C-0006vP-NH for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:32:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iAK9A-0000s4-Q3 for pgsql-www@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:32:24 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iAK9A-0000rr-GI for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:32:24 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1iAK98-0001lS-AN for pgsql-www@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:32:23 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x8HKWHUb011453; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:32:17 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: Alvaro Herrera , Magnus Hagander , PostgreSQL WWW Subject: Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org In-reply-to: <5d1b8859-3bca-9d98-31b7-e43a302446ec@2ndquadrant.com> References: <20190530191650.GA24909@alvherre.pgsql> <82447.1559409033@sss.pgh.pa.us> <854d3409-87d0-fa44-430d-ce2babc58f1d@2ndquadrant.com> <10512.1568751170@sss.pgh.pa.us> <5d1b8859-3bca-9d98-31b7-e43a302446ec@2ndquadrant.com> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:15:02 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <11451.1568752337.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:32:17 -0400 Message-ID: <11452.1568752337@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 2019-09-17 22:12, Tom Lane wrote: >> But should we worry about any buildfarm members running old ccache >> versions? It'd probably be polite to notify the owners list about >> what the minimum ccache version is going to be. > Buildfarm members are not running coverage, are they? Ah, of course not. I'd forgotten the details of what we were concerned about. Objection withdrawn. regards, tom lane