Hi, On 2022-10-02 16:35:06 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 01:52:01PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2022-10-01 18:36:41 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > > I am wondering if we should instead introduce a new "quickcheck" task that > > > just compiles and runs maybe one test and have *all* other tests depend on > > > that. Wasting a precious available windows instance to just fail to > > > build or > > > immediately fail during tests doesn't really make sense. > > > With a primed cache this takes ~32s, not too bad imo. 12s of that is > > cloning the repo. > > Maybe - that would avoid waiting 4 minutes for a windows instance to > start in the (hopefully atypical) case of a patch that fails in 1-2 > minutes under linux/freebsd. > > If the patch were completely broken, the windows task would take ~4min > to start, plus up to ~4min before failing to compile or failing an early > test. 6-8 minutes isn't nothing, but doesn't seem worth the added > complexity.
Btw, the motivation to work on this just now was that I'd like to enable more sanitizers (undefined,alignment for linux-meson, address for linux-autoconf). Yes, we could make the dependency on freebsd instead, but I'd like to try to enable the clang-only memory sanitizer there (if it works on freebsd)... Greetings, Andres Freund
