On 2021-10-01 17:37:11 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Oct-01, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2021-10-01 14:07:42 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > But why are we mangling the PATH at all? Wouldn't it be better just to
> > > call command_ok with "$ENV{TESTDIR}/libpg_pipeline" ?
> >
> > Yea, i
On 2021-Oct-01, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-10-01 14:07:42 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > But why are we mangling the PATH at all? Wouldn't it be better just to
> > call command_ok with "$ENV{TESTDIR}/libpg_pipeline" ?
>
> Yea, it probably would. Alvaro, I assume you don't mind if I
Hi,
On 2021-10-01 14:07:42 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> But why are we mangling the PATH at all? Wouldn't it be better just to
> call command_ok with "$ENV{TESTDIR}/libpg_pipeline" ?
Yea, it probably would. Alvaro, I assume you don't mind if I change that?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
On 9/30/21 5:40 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For me 001_libpq_pipeline.pl doesn't reliably work on windows, because it
> tries to add something to PATH, using unix syntax (vs ; used on windows).
>
> $ENV{PATH} = "$ENV{TESTDIR}:$ENV{PATH}";
>
> If the first two elements in PATH are something
Hi,
For me 001_libpq_pipeline.pl doesn't reliably work on windows, because it
tries to add something to PATH, using unix syntax (vs ; used on windows).
$ENV{PATH} = "$ENV{TESTDIR}:$ENV{PATH}";
If the first two elements in PATH are something needed, this can cause the
test to fail... I'm surprise
