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
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
