Re: TAP test command_fails versus command_fails_like - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Subject Re: TAP test command_fails versus command_fails_like
Date
Msg-id 87ed032j7c.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TAP test command_fails versus command_fails_like  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: TAP test command_fails versus command_fails_like
Re: TAP test command_fails versus command_fails_like
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:

> On 2025-02-12 We 8:58 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>>
>>> Another question is whether command_fails and command_fails_like is
>>> the only pair or there are more which need stricter checks?
>> If we do this, we should do it across the board for
>> PostgreSQL::Test::Utils and ::Cluster at least.  Once we bump the
>> minimum perl version to 5.20 or beyond we should switch to using
>> function signatures (https://perldoc.perl.org/perlsub#Signatures), which
>> gives us this checking for free.
>
> Is there any reason we can't move to 5.20? Are there any buildfarm
> animals using such an old version? 5.20 is now almost 10 years old.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 has Perl 5.16 and is on Extended Lifecycle
Support until 2028-06-30. I don't know how long other distros based on
that (e.g. CentOS, Scientific Linux) are supported, but I can see that
Amazon Linux 2 is almost out of support (2025-06-30).

> cheers
>
> andrew

- ilmari



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: EquivalenceClass and custom_read_write
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Small memory fixes for pg_createsubcriber