| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SIGPIPE in TAP tests |
| Date: | 2017-12-11 07:32:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20171211073243.GA3624262@rfd.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 04:19:52PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> If SIGPIPE is ignored then test output just stops after generating the
> FATAL message. Oops.
You mean "If SIGPIPE is not ignored ...", right?
> > To fix the actual failures, we can cease sending "SELECT 1"; it's enough to
> > disconnect immediately. Patch attached.
>
> Perhaps you could use an empty string instead? I feel a bit uneasy
> about passing an undefined object to IPC::Run::run.
IPC::Run documents the equivalence of undef and '' in this context; search for
"close a child processes stdin" in
http://search.cpan.org/~rbs/IPC-Run-0.78/lib/IPC/Run.pm. Thus, I expect both
spellings to work reliably, and I find "undef" slightly more evocative.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-12-11 08:17:40 | Re: SIGPIPE in TAP tests |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2017-12-11 07:25:15 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6 |