From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SIGPIPE in TAP tests |
Date: | 2017-12-11 08:17:40 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSPG8hi1K9o-9+y6km5fJqMKXZkD_mr=p8W+MD_j9ORwQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 04:19:52PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> If SIGPIPE is ignored then test output just stops after generating the
>> FATAL message. Oops.
>
> You mean "If SIGPIPE is not ignored ...", right?
Yes, sorry.
>> > To fix the actual failures, we can cease sending "SELECT 1"; it's enough to
>> > disconnect immediately. Patch attached.
>>
>> Perhaps you could use an empty string instead? I feel a bit uneasy
>> about passing an undefined object to IPC::Run::run.
>
> IPC::Run documents the equivalence of undef and '' in this context; search for
> "close a child processes stdin" in
> http://search.cpan.org/~rbs/IPC-Run-0.78/lib/IPC/Run.pm. Thus, I expect both
> spellings to work reliably, and I find "undef" slightly more evocative.
Thanks, I missed this bit. No objections to use undef then.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2017-12-11 08:18:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2017-12-11 07:32:43 | Re: SIGPIPE in TAP tests |