Re: Make psql's qeury canceling test simple by using signal() routine of IPC::Run

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Make psql's qeury canceling test simple by using signal() routine of IPC::Run
Date: 2023-09-13 01:20:23
Message-ID: ZQEOV2TdzMF+xXoA@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 03:18:05PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 12:45:24AM +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> > I attached the update patch. I removed the incorrect comments and
> > unnecessary lines. Also, I rewrote the test to use "skip_all" instead
> > of SKIP because we skip the whole test rather than a part of it.
>
> Thanks for checking how IPC::Run behaves in this case on Windows!
>
> Right. This test is currently setting up a node for nothing, so let's
> skip this test entirely under $windows_os and move on. I'll backpatch
> that down to 15 once the embargo on REL_16_STABLE is lifted with the
> 16.0 tag.

At the end, I have split this change into two:
- One to disable the test to run on Windows, skipping the wasted node
initialization, and applied that down to 15.
- One to switch to signal(), only for HEAD to see what happens in the
buildfarm once the test is able to run on platforms that do not
support PPID. I am wondering as well how IPC::Run::signal is stable,
as it is the first time we would use it, AFAIK.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-09-13 01:36:49 Re: Is the member name of hashctl inappropriateļ¼Ÿ
Previous Message bt23nguyent 2023-09-13 01:18:46 Tab completion for ATTACH PARTITION