| 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
| 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 |