From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: SIGPIPE in TAP tests
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 23:32:43 -0800
Message-ID: <20171211073243.GA3624262@rfd.leadboat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB7nPqQGd_qeQPW4EZ5qVP++47m0SyDC2HHiN6L+Y6HJ20mBMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20171209210203.GC3362632@rfd.leadboat.com>
<CAB7nPqQGd_qeQPW4EZ5qVP++47m0SyDC2HHiN6L+Y6HJ20mBMw@mail.gmail.com>
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@leadboat.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.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: noah@leadboat.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: SIGPIPE in TAP tests
In-Reply-To: <20171211073243.GA3624262@rfd.leadboat.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox