Re: Make psql's qeury canceling test simple by using signal() routine of IPC::Run

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Make psql's qeury canceling test simple by using signal() routine of IPC::Run
Date: 2023-09-12 06:18:05
Message-ID: ZQACnWUtc/Y9pFES@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 12:45:24AM +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote:
> I attached the update patch. I removed the incorrect comments and
> unnecessary lines. Also, I rewrote the test to use "skip_all" instead
> of SKIP because we skip the whole test rather than a part of it.

Thanks for checking how IPC::Run behaves in this case on Windows!

Right. This test is currently setting up a node for nothing, so let's
skip this test entirely under $windows_os and move on. I'll backpatch
that down to 15 once the embargo on REL_16_STABLE is lifted with the
16.0 tag.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2023-09-12 06:18:43 Re: Row pattern recognition
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-09-12 06:10:17 Re: pg_rewind with cascade standby doesn't work well