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
