| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, nospam-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com, craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TAP test module - PostgresClient |
| Date: | 2018-03-03 14:46:11 |
| Message-ID: | 7f1e5f2f-4902-2c29-de82-381de8cc6d66@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/1/18 23:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:27:13AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> If I understand correctly there's been no progress on this since, and
>> there'd definitely need to be major work to get something we can agree
>> upon. Doesn't seem v11 material. I think we should mark this as returned
>> with feedback. Arguments against?
>
> Agreed with your position. The TAP tests rely on IPC::Run as a pillar
> of its infrastructure. I think that if we need a base API to do such
> capabilities we ought to prioritize what we can do with it first instead
> of trying to reinvent the wheel as this patch proposes in such a
> complicated way.
I haven't seen any explanation for a problem this is solving. The
original submission contained a sample test case, by I don't see why
that couldn't be done with the existing infrastructure.
Patch closed for now.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-03-03 14:52:40 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-03-03 14:37:35 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11 |