Thread: pgbench tests vs Windows
In commit ed8a7c6fcf9 we added some extra tests to pgbench, including
this snippet:
\setshell two\
expr \
1 + :one
Unfortunately, this isn't portable, as I've just discovered at the cost
of quite a bit of time. In particular, you can't assume expr is present
and in the path on Windows. The Windows equivalent would be something like:
\setshell two\
@set /a c = 1 + :one && echo %c%
I propose to prepare a patch along these lines. Alternatively we could
just drop it - I don't think the test matters all that hugely.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> In commit ed8a7c6fcf9 we added some extra tests to pgbench, including
> this snippet:
> \setshell two\
> expr \
> 1 + :one
> Unfortunately, this isn't portable, as I've just discovered at the cost
> of quite a bit of time. In particular, you can't assume expr is present
> and in the path on Windows.
Ugh.
> The Windows equivalent would be something like:
> \setshell two\
> @set /a c = 1 + :one && echo %c%
I wonder how universal that is, either.
> I propose to prepare a patch along these lines. Alternatively we could
> just drop it - I don't think the test matters all that hugely.
I'd say try that, but if it doesn't work right away, just skip the
test on Windows.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:13:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> I propose to prepare a patch along these lines. Alternatively we could >> just drop it - I don't think the test matters all that hugely. > > I'd say try that, but if it doesn't work right away, just skip the > test on Windows. +1. I don't see exactly why we should drop it either. -- Michael
Attachment
Hello Andrew, > Unfortunately, this isn't portable, as I've just discovered at the cost > of quite a bit of time. In particular, you can't assume expr is present > and in the path on Windows. The Windows equivalent would be something like: > > \setshell two\ > @set /a c = 1 + :one && echo %c% Hmmm... Can we assume that echo is really always there on Windows? If so, the attached patch does something only with "echo". > I propose to prepare a patch along these lines. Alternatively we could > just drop it - I don't think the test matters all that hugely. The point is to have some minimal coverage so that unexpected changes are caught. This is the only call to a working \setshell. -- Fabien.
Attachment
On 7/24/19 3:56 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Andrew, > >> Unfortunately, this isn't portable, as I've just discovered at the cost >> of quite a bit of time. In particular, you can't assume expr is present >> and in the path on Windows. The Windows equivalent would be something >> like: >> >> \setshell two\ >> @set /a c = 1 + :one && echo %c% > > Hmmm... Can we assume that echo is really always there on Windows? If > so, the attached patch does something only with "echo". Yes, it's built into the cmd processor (as is "set /a", to answer Tom's earlier question about portability - I tested the above back to XP.) echo is much more universal, and I can confirm that the suggested fix works on the Windows test box I'm using. I'll apply and backpatch that. Thanks cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services