On 11/2/14 2:00 PM, Noah Misch wrote: >> Ick; I concur with your judgment on those aspects of the IPC::Cmd design. >> Thanks for investigating. So, surviving options include: >> >> 1. Require IPC::Run. >> 2. Write our own run() that reports the raw exit code. >> 3. Distill the raw exit code from the IPC::Cmd::run() error string. >> 4. Pass IPC::Run::run_forked() a subroutine that execs an argument list. > > FWIW, (3) looks most promising to me. That is to say, implement a reverse of > IPC::Cmd::_pp_child_error(). Ugly to be sure, but the wart can be small and > self-contained.
I thank you for this research, but I suggest that we ship 9.4 as is, that is with requiring IPC::Run and --enable-* option. All the possible alternatives will clearly need more rounds of portability testing. We can then evaluate these changes for 9.5 in peace. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
