On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:27:13AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> If I understand correctly there's been no progress on this since, and
> there'd definitely need to be major work to get something we can agree
> upon. Doesn't seem v11 material. I think we should mark this as returned
> with feedback. Arguments against?
Agreed with your position. The TAP tests rely on IPC::Run as a pillar
of its infrastructure. I think that if we need a base API to do such
capabilities we ought to prioritize what we can do with it first instead
of trying to reinvent the wheel as this patch proposes in such a
complicated way.
--
Michael
