On 4/9/25 17:51, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2025-04-09 17:28:31 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> On 4/9/25 17:14, Andres Freund wrote: >>> I'd mention that the includes of postgres.h/fmgr.h is what caused missing >>> build-time dependencies and via that failures on buildfarm member dogfish. >>> >> >> Not really, I also need to include "c.h" instead of "postgres.h" (which >> is also causing the same failure). > > I did mention postgres.h :) >
D'oh, I missed that. I was focused on the fmgr one. > > >>> I think this may not be needed anymore, that was just there for >>> GetSystemInfo(), right? Conversely, I suspect it may now be needed in the >>> new >>> location of pg_numa_get_pagesize()? >>> >> >> Good question. But if it's needed there, shouldn't it have failed on CI? > > Oh. No. It shouldn't have - because that include was completely > unnecessary. We always include windows.h on windows. > Makes sense. I'll get rid of the windows.h include. > > >>>> From 201f8be652e9344dfa247b035a66e52025afa149 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>>> From: Tomas Vondra <to...@vondra.me> >>>> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 13:29:31 +0200 >>>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ci: Check for missing dependencies in meson build >>>> >>>> Extends the meson build on Debian to also check for missing dependencies >>>> by executing >>>> >>>> ninja -t missingdeps >>>> >>>> right after the build. This highlights unindended dependencies. >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> >>>> https://postgr.es/m/caldsspi5fj0a7ug7fmw2cud1uwucku_e8dj+6x-bjeokcsx...@mail.gmail.com >>> >>> FWIW, while I'd prefer it as a meson.build visible test(), I think it's ok >>> to >>> have it just in CI until we have that. I would however also add it to the >>> windows job, as that's the most "different" type of build / source of missed >>> dependencies that wouldn't show up on our development systems. >>> >> >> We can add it as a meson.build test, sure. I was going for the CI first, >> because then it fires no matter what build I do locally (I'm kinda still >> used to autotools). > > A meson test would do the same thing, it'd fail while running the tests, no? > Sure, but only if you use meson. Which I still mostly don't, so I've been thinking about the CI first, because I use that very consistently before pushing something. > >> If you agree adding it to build_script is the right way to do that, I'll >> do the same thing for the windows job. > > WFM. Thanks. I'll polish this a bit more and push. regards -- Tomas Vondra
