On 7/24/19 3:56 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Andrew,
>
>> Unfortunately, this isn't portable, as I've just discovered at the cost
>> of quite a bit of time. In particular, you can't assume expr is present
>> and in the path on Windows. The Windows equivalent would be something
>> like:
>>
>
Hello Andrew,
Unfortunately, this isn't portable, as I've just discovered at the cost
of quite a bit of time. In particular, you can't assume expr is present
and in the path on Windows. The Windows equivalent would be something like:
\setshell two\
@set /a c = 1 + :one && echo %c%
H
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:13:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> I propose to prepare a patch along these lines. Alternatively we could
>> just drop it - I don't think the test matters all that hugely.
>
> I'd say try that, but if it doesn't work right away, just skip the
> t
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> In commit ed8a7c6fcf9 we added some extra tests to pgbench, including
> this snippet:
> \setshell two\
> expr \
> 1 + :one
> Unfortunately, this isn't portable, as I've just discovered at the cost
> of quite a bit of time. In particular, you can't assume
In commit ed8a7c6fcf9 we added some extra tests to pgbench, including
this snippet:
\setshell two\
expr \
1 + :one
Unfortunately, this isn't portable, as I've just discovered at the cost
of quite a bit of time. In particular, you can't assume expr is present
and in the path o
