On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 8:06 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure, see also > http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYRGUcFBy6VgN0+Pn4f6Wv=2h0hzluphqsy6vc8ba7...@mail.gmail.com > where Andrew's opinion on how to fix this was sought. > > I have to say the fact that IPC::Run does shell-glob expansion of its > arguments on some machines and not others seems ludicrous to me. This > patch may be overtested, but such a radical behavior difference is > completely nuts. How is anyone supposed to write reliable tests for > any feature in the face of such wildly inconsistent behavior?
Yeah, I was speculating that it's a bug in IPC::Run that has been fixed (by our very own Noah), and some of the machines are still running the buggy version. (Not a Windows person, but I speculate the reason that such a stupid bug is even possible may be that Windows lacks a way to 'exec' stuff with a passed-in unadulterated argv[] array, so you always need to build a full shell command subject to interpolation, so if you're trying to emulate an argv[]-style interface you have to write the code to do the escaping, and so everyone gets a chance to screw that up.)
