| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TAP test command_fails versus command_fails_like |
| Date: | 2025-02-12 15:40:25 |
| Message-ID: | 419ce961-fda6-4b24-b5c2-fde414065c70@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-02-12 We 8:58 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>
>> Another question is whether command_fails and command_fails_like is
>> the only pair or there are more which need stricter checks?
> If we do this, we should do it across the board for
> PostgreSQL::Test::Utils and ::Cluster at least. Once we bump the
> minimum perl version to 5.20 or beyond we should switch to using
> function signatures (https://perldoc.perl.org/perlsub#Signatures) which
> gives us this checking for free.
>
Is there any reason we can't move to 5.20? Are there any buildfarm
animals using such an old version? 5.20 is now almost 10 years old.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2025-02-12 16:00:19 | Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-02-12 15:38:04 | Re: Unneeded volatile qualifier in fmgr.c |