Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests
Date
Msg-id ZhTcgcCKKWu-pLBs@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests
List 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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: NLS doesn't work for pg_combinebackup
Next
From: "Andrey M. Borodin"
Date:
Subject: Re: SET ROLE documentation improvement