Hi, On 2021-10-02 11:05:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Yeah. I cannot see any reason to object to Andres' 0002 patch: you can > just ignore those files if you don't want to use cirrus. It does set a > precedent that we'd also accept infrastructure for other CI systems, > but as long as they're similarly noninvasive, why not?
Exactly. > (Maybe there needs to be one more directory level though, ie > ci/cirrus/whatever. I don't want to end up with one toplevel directory per > CI platform.) Good question - it definitely shouldn't be one toplevel directory per CI platform (although some will require their own hidden toplevel directories, like .github/workflows etc). I'd hope to share a bunch of the infrastructure between them over time, so perhaps we don't need a deeper hierarchy. > I don't know enough about Windows to evaluate 0001, but I'm a little > worried about it because it looks like it's changing our *production* > error handling on that platform. Yea. It's clearly not ready as-is - it's the piece that I was planning to write a separate email about. It's hard to understand what *precisely* SEM_NOGPFAULTERRORBOX etc do. What I do know is that without the _set_abort_behavior() stuff abort() doesn't trigger windows' "crash" paths in at least debugging builds, and that the SetErrorMode() and _CrtSetReportMode() changes are necessary to get segfaults to reach the crash paths. The in-tree behaviour turns out to make debugging on windows a major pain, at least when compiling with msvc. Crashes never trigger core dumps or "just in time" debugging (their term for invoking a debugger upon crash), so one has to attach to processes before they crash, to have any chance of debugging. As far as I can tell this also means that at least for debugging builds, pgwin32_install_crashdump_handler() is pretty much dead weight - crashDumpHandler() never gets invoked. I think it may get invoked for abort()s in production builds, but probably not for segfaults. And despite SEM_NOGPFAULTERRORBOX we display those annoying "popup" boxes telling us about the crash and giving the option to retry, ignore, something something. It's all a bit baffling. > As for 0003, wasn't that committed already? Not at the time I was writing the email, but now it is, yes. Greetings, Andres Freund
