Re: Make psql's qeury canceling test simple by using signal() routine of IPC::Run - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Make psql's qeury canceling test simple by using signal() routine of IPC::Run
Date
Msg-id ZQEOV2TdzMF+xXoA@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Make psql's qeury canceling test simple by using signal() routine of IPC::Run  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Make psql's qeury canceling test simple by using signal() routine of IPC::Run
List 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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: bt23nguyent
Date:
Subject: Tab completion for ATTACH PARTITION
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Is the member name of hashctl inappropriate?