Re: headerscheck ccache support
Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-12-04T10:52:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 28.11.25 14:10, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 28.11.25 13:59, Álvaro Herrera wrote: >> On 2025-Nov-28, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote: >> >>> I could not apply patches cleanly. Am I missing something? >> >> Yeah, I couldn't get `git am` or `git apply` to accept the patches >> either, not even with -3. However, `patch -p1` does accept it. Weird. > > I had another commit in my local branch that I needed to get the actual > compilations working, but which was unrelated to this discussion. > Apparently, this created enough fuzz to break the subsequent patches. > Here is the patch series again completely, but ignore the 0000 patch for > now. I have committed patches 0000 and 0001, which was the main subject of this thread. What do people think about patch 0002, which runs headerscheck and cpluspluscheck in parallel on ci? It should save several seconds of wall-clock time for that task, and I don't see any drawbacks, unless you want to retain the specific previous output format for some reason. I don't plan to pursue the other parallelization work (patch 0003) at this time.
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
ci: Run headerscheck and cpluspluscheck in parallel
- 085a531983e2 19 (unreleased) landed
-
headerscheck ccache support
- 40bdd839f52a 19 (unreleased) landed
-
headerscheck: Use LLVM_CPPFLAGS
- d0b7a0b4c8f4 19 (unreleased) landed