| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org |
| Date: | 2019-09-17 20:15:02 |
| Message-ID: | 5d1b8859-3bca-9d98-31b7-e43a302446ec@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
On 2019-09-17 22:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2019-06-01 19:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'll probably bite the bullet and upgrade that box sometime in the
>>> next year or so, but it's not really a near-term project. Is there
>>> any big hurry for having ccache for coverage builds?
>
>> I happened to come across this again. I think we should make the change
>> Álvaro was proposing. The fix in ccache is 5 years old now.
>
> Fair enough, I can just install a newer ccache version locally.
>
> 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?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-17 20:32:17 | Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-17 20:12:50 | Re: Bogus reports from coverage.postgresql.org |