Re: Making background psql nicer to use in tap tests

> On 8 Apr 2023, at 00:59, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Apr 2023, at 00:35, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>>>> On 7 Apr 2023, at 23:01, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>>> Staring at this I've been unable to figure out if there an underlying problem
>>> here or a flaky testrun, since I can't reproduce it. Maybe the animal owner
>>> (on cc) have any insights?
>>
>>> The test has passed on several different platforms in the buildfarm, including
>>> Linux, Solaris, macOS, NetBSD, FreeBSD and other OpenBSD animals. It also
>>> passed in an OpenBSD VM running with our Cirrus framework.
>>
>> prion and mantid have now failed with the same symptom. I don't
>> see a pattern, but it's not OpenBSD-only. It will be interesting
>> to see if the failure is intermittent or not on those animals.

morepork has failed again, which is good, since intermittent failures are
harder to track down.

> It would be interesting to know how far in the pumped input they get, if they
> time out on the first one with nothing going through? Will investigate further
> tomorrow to see.

Actually, one quick datapoint. prion and mantid report running IPC::Run
version 0.92, and morepork 0.96. Animals that pass are running 20180523.0,
20200505.0, 20220807.0 or similar versions. We don't print the IO::Pty version
during configure, but maybe this is related to older versions of the modules
and this test (not all of them apparently) need to SKIP if IO::Pty is missing
or too old? Somewhere to start looking at the very least.

--
Daniel Gustafsson