| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: abi-compliance-checker |
| Date: | 2024-02-27 14:22:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wznvsg7nvNpNZfV5OZNgn_44nezPnsPyDBqkehUxkcCbag@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:03 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Now, maybe a buildfarm animal is not the right tool, and instead we need
> a separate system that tests for it and emails pg-hackers when it breaks
> or whatever. That's fine with me, but it seems a pretty minor
> implementation detail.
Anything that alerts on breakage is pretty much equivalent to having a
buildfarm animal.
I have a feeling that there are going to be real problems with
alerting, at least if it's introduced right away. I'd feel much better
about it if there was an existing body of suppressions, that more or
less worked as a reference of agreed upon best practices. Can we do
that part first, rather than starting out with a blanket assumption
that everything that happened before now must have been perfect?
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-02-27 14:22:30 | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-02-27 14:09:24 | Re: Logging parallel worker draught |