Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Doing this without DBI is going to be ten times harder than doing
>> it with DBI. Are we really sure that's not a viable option?
> In the buildfarm? Yes, I think so. The philosophy of the buildfarm
> is that it should do what you would do yourself by hand.
>
> And adding DBI as a requirement for running a buildfarm member
> would be a significant extra barrier to entry, ISTM. (I am very
> fond of DBI, and use it frequently, BTW)
>
> I'm persuadable on most things, but this one would take a bit of
> doing.
As far as I've been able to determine so far, to call psql in a
relatively portable way would require something like this:
http://perldoc.perl.org/perlfork.html
Is that really better than DBI?
Don't we need some way to routinely test multi-session issues?
Other ideas?
-Kevin
