Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests
Date
Msg-id 3877dc14-9574-4ea1-bc1e-e496bf0c3fc7@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2024-04-09 Tu 09:46, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>> By the way, are you planning to do something like [1]?  I've not
>> looked in details at the callers of IPC::Run::timeout, still the extra
>> debug output would be nice.
> It needs more review I think - I didn't check every call site to see
> if anything would be broken.  I believe Andrew has undertaken a
> survey of all the timeout/timer calls, but if he doesn't produce
> anything I might have a go at it after awhile.
>
>             


What I looked at so far was the use of is_expired, but when you look 
into that you see that you need to delve further, to where timeout/timer 
objects are created and passed around. I'll take a closer look when I 
have done some incremental json housekeeping.


cheers


andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser