On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:14:07PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 10/28/14 9:09 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > I have looked into IPC::Cmd, but the documentation keeps telling me that > > to do anything interesting I have to have IPC::Run anyway. I'll give it > > a try, though. > > I tried this, but I'm not optimistic about it. While parts of IPC::Cmd > are actually a bit nicer than IPC::Run, other parts are weird. For > example, with most packages and functions in Perl that run a command, > you can pass the command as a string or as a list (or array reference). > The latter is preferred because it avoids issues with quoting, word > splitting, spaces, etc. In IPC::Run, I can use the "run" function in > the latter way, but I cannot use the "run_forked" function like that, > and I need that one to get the exit code of a command. It's possible to > work around that, but I'm getting the feeling that this is not very well > designed.
Ick; I concur with your judgment on those aspects of the IPC::Cmd design. Thanks for investigating. So, surviving options include: 1. Require IPC::Run. 2. Write our own run() that reports the raw exit code. 3. Distill the raw exit code from the IPC::Cmd::run() error string. 4. Pass IPC::Run::run_forked() a subroutine that execs an argument list. Any others worth noting? > Also, IPC::Cmd is a wrapper module, and it passes the hard work down to > other modules, depending on what's available. I think that sounds like > a portability problem waiting to happen. Assuming test suite code doesn't modify $IPC::Cmd::USE_* variables, the two relevant backends are IPC::Run on Windows and IPC::Open3 everywhere else. That's not bad. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
