From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: bailing out in tap tests nearly always a bad idea
In-reply-to: <20220213232249.7sevhlioapydla37@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20220213232249.7sevhlioapydla37@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Sun, 13 Feb 2022 15:22:49 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2744433.1644795179.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2022 18:32:59 -0500
Message-ID: <2744434.1644795179@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2744434.1644795179%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Does anybody want to defend / explain the use of BAIL_OUT? If not, I thi=
nk we
> should consider doing a global replace of the use of bailing.

+1

> Best with a
> central function signalling fatal error, rather than individual uses of =
die
> or such.

Huh, doesn't Test::More already provide a sane way to do this?
If not, why isn't die() good enough?  (I don't think you can
realistically expect to prohibit die() anywhere in the TAP tests.)

			regards, tom lane