Re: Backporting BackgroundPsql

On 2024-06-25 Tu 10:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund<andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> On 2024-06-25 13:26:23 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> 1. Write the new test differently on backbranches. Before 664d757531, the
>>> test needs to work a lot harder to use the background psql session, calling
>>> pump() etc. That's doable, but as noted in the discussion that led to
>>> 664d757531, it's laborious and error-prone.
>>>
>>> 2. Backport commit 664d757531. This might break out-of-tree perl tests that
>>> use the background_psql() function. I don't know if any such tests exist,
>>> and they would need to be changed for v17 anyway, so that seems acceptable.
>>> Anyone aware of any extensions using the perl test modules?
>>>
>>> 3. Backport commit 664d757531, but keep the existing background_psql()
>>> function unchanged. Add a different constructor to get the v17-style
>>> BackgroundPsql session, something like "$node->background_psql_new()".
>> Yes, I've wished for this a couple times. I think 2 or 3 would be reasonable.
>> I think 1) often just leads to either tests not being written or being
>> fragile...
> I'd vote for (2). (3) is just leaving a foot-gun for people to
> hurt themselves with.
>
>

+1

I'd like to get rid of it in its current form at least. Just about all
the uses I'm aware of could be transformed to use the Session object
I've been working on, based either on FFI or a small XS wrapper for some
of libpq.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB:https://www.enterprisedb.com