Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests
Date: 2024-04-09 06:13:21
Message-ID: ZhTcgcCKKWu-pLBs@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 05:18:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Based on this info, I'm disinclined to put work into trying to
> make the case behave correctly with that old libedit version, or
> even to lobotomize the test case enough so it would pass.

By the way, are you planning to do something like [1]? I've not
looked in details at the callers of IPC::Run::timeout, still the extra
debug output would be nice.

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1100715.1712265845@sss.pgh.pa.us
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrey M. Borodin 2024-04-09 06:21:39 Re: SET ROLE documentation improvement
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-04-09 06:00:27 Re: NLS doesn't work for pg_combinebackup