Re: psql tab completion versus Debian's libedit - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: psql tab completion versus Debian's libedit
Date
Msg-id 20220203021029.aw5ivy7u4us6msfm@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to psql tab completion versus Debian's libedit  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: psql tab completion versus Debian's libedit  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2022-02-01 16:30:11 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I chased down the failure that kittiwake has been showing since
> 02b8048ba [1].

I just rebased my meson branch across the commit d33a81203e9. And on freebsd
the meson based build failed in the expanded tests, while autoconf succeeded.

The failure is:

not ok 22 - complete schema-qualified name
#   Failed test 'complete schema-qualified name'
#   at /tmp/cirrus-ci-build/src/bin/psql/t/010_tab_completion.pl line 236.
# Actual output was "tab "
# Did not match "(?^:tab1 )"


I think this is caused by the feature flag detection being broken in the meson
branch - unrelated to your commit - ending up with falsely believing that none
of the rl_* variables exist (below for more on that aspect).

Do we care that the tests would fail when using a readline without any of the
rl_* variables? I don't know if those even exist.


The reason for meson not detecting the variables is either an "andres" or
freebsd / readline issue. The tests fail with:

/usr/local/include/readline/rltypedefs.h:71:36: error: unknown type name 'FILE'
typedef int rl_getc_func_t PARAMS((FILE *));
                                   ^
apparently the readline header on freebsd somehow has a dependency on stdio.h
being included.

Looks like it's easy enough to work around. My local copy of readline.h (8.1
on debian sid) has an explicit stdio.h include, but it looks like that's a
debian addition...

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: ci/cfbot: run windows tests under a timeout
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Unclear problem reports