On 3/1/18 23:39, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 02:27:13AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> If I understand correctly there's been no progress on this since, and
>> there'd definitely need to be major work to get something we can agree
>> upon. Doesn't seem v11 material. I think we should mark this as returned
>> with feedback. Arguments against?
>
> Agreed with your position. The TAP tests rely on IPC::Run as a pillar
> of its infrastructure. I think that if we need a base API to do such
> capabilities we ought to prioritize what we can do with it first instead
> of trying to reinvent the wheel as this patch proposes in such a
> complicated way.
I haven't seen any explanation for a problem this is solving. The
original submission contained a sample test case, by I don't see why
that couldn't be done with the existing infrastructure.
Patch closed for now.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
