Re: 001_password.pl fails with --without-readline

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Oleg Tselebrovskiy <o(dot)tselebrovskiy(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Soumya S Murali <soumyamurali(dot)work(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: 001_password.pl fails with --without-readline
Date: 2026-01-19 19:01:31
Message-ID: 1122512.1768849291@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

=?UTF-8?B?T2xlZyBUc2VsZWJyb3Zza2l5?= <o(dot)tselebrovskiy(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
>> While debugging that I got annoyed that a match failure results
>> in a timeout exit with absolutely no data logged about what output
>> the test got.  So v3-0001 also changes timeout() --- which creates
>> a timeout that aborts the test --- to timer() --- which does what
>> the test author clearly expected, namely just stop waiting for
>> more input.  (There's a thread somewhere around here about making
>> that change more globally, but I went ahead and did it here.)

> I've found your thread about this - [1], and I agree, using
> timer() is better here, we get the stdout and stderr of a timed-out
> query

Thanks for digging that up. After re-reading that thread I'm feeling
nervous about changing timeout() to timer() in something we need to
back-patch, so I'll leave that change out of the committed patch.
We ought to raise the priority of making that happen, though.

> Also, thanks for making both "pump until" blocks identical, it seemed
> a little strange to have them be different.

Yeah, I couldn't see a reason for that either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alena Rybakina 2026-01-19 19:33:06 Re: Add rows removed by hash join clause to instrumentation
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2026-01-19 19:01:29 Re: Patch: dumping tables data in multiple chunks in pg_dump