Re: TAP test command_fails versus command_fails_like - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: TAP test command_fails versus command_fails_like
Date
Msg-id 419ce961-fda6-4b24-b5c2-fde414065c70@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TAP test command_fails versus command_fails_like  (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org>)
Responses Re: TAP test command_fails versus command_fails_like
List 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




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: Unneeded volatile qualifier in fmgr.c
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optionally record Plan IDs to track plan changes for a query