Hi, On 2024-05-24 10:30:00 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2024-05-24 16:17:37 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > I'm not sure what the backpatching expectations of this kind of thing is. > > The history of this CI setup is relatively short, so this hasn't been > > stressed too much. I see that we once backpatched the macOS update, but > > that might have been all. > > I've backpatched a few other changes too. > > > > If we start backpatching this kind of thing, then this will grow as a job > > over time. We'll have 5 or 6 branches to keep up to date, with several > > operating systems. And once in a while we'll have to make additional > > changes like this warning fix you mention here. I'm not sure how much we > > want to take this on. Is there ongoing value in the CI setup in > > backbranches? > > I find it extremely useful to run CI on backbranches before > batckpatching. Enough so that I've thought about proposing backpatching CI all > the way. > > I don't think it's that much work to fix this kind of thing in the > backbranches. We don't need to backpatch new tasks or such. Just enough stuff > to keep e.g. the base image the same - otherwise we end up running CI on > unsupported distros, which doesn't help anybody. > > > > With these patches, we could do either of the following: > > 5) We update master, PG16, and PG15, but we hold all of them until the > > warning in PG15 is fixed. > > I think we should apply the fix in <= 15 - IMO it's a correct compiler > warning, what we do right now is wrong.
I've now applied the guc fix to all branches and the CI changes to 15+. Thanks Bilal! Greetings, Andres
