Re: Heads Up: cirrus-ci is shutting down June 1st

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2026-04-17T21:48:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 02:50:53PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This patch removes six lines of code and adds none. There are four
>> messages on the thread. We've done 14 complete CI runs. That might be
>> an extreme example, but I just don't know if repeatedly running CI on
>> small patches that aren't being actively updated is really what we
>> want to be doing.

> Yes, starting with a low threshold should have little impact.  I
> suspect that we could take it slow, say by testing much less patches
> that have a max of N lines touched (20~50?), and shave in resource
> usage.  This would not change much how useful the information provided
> is.

I think running a test promptly after a new patch submission is
useful, even for small patches.  I agree that the periodic re-tests
for bit-rot could be scaled back a lot.

			regards, tom lane



Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. ci: Add GitHub Actions based CI

  2. ci: Remove support for cirrus-ci based CI