Re: headerscheck ccache support
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-11-21T15:57:33Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi, On 2025-11-21 13:14:18 +0100, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2025-Nov-21, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > # Verify headerscheck / cpluspluscheck succeed > > # > > - # - Don't use ccache, the files are uncacheable, polluting ccache's > > - # cache > > So how bad is the effect of the cache pollution that's now going to > occur? I imagine we don't really care. (I have no idea how to measure > this, and probably it's a waste of time just to try.) I don't think there's any cache pollution after this change - the pollution the comment was referencing was that ccache's cache would be filled with entries for files that would *never* be used and would therefore be useless. With this change the added use of ccache will just accelerate the CI runs, which I wouldn't consider polluting... Greetings, Andres Freund
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