Tom Lane wrote:
Sure, it wouldn't take much to create a minimal C+libpq program that would do the basics. But the history of testing tools teaches that you soon find yourself wanting a whole lot more functionality, like conditional tests, looping, etc, in the test-driver mechanism. That's the wheel that I don't want to re-invent. And it's a big part of the reason why stuff like Expect and the Perl Test modules have become so popular: you have a full scripting language right there at your command. Maybe the right answer is just to hack up Pg.pm or DBD::Pg to provide the needed asynchronous-command-submission facility, and go forward from there using the Perl Test framework.
How will we make sure it's consistent? People have widely varying versions of DBD::Pg and DBI installed, not to mention the bewildering array of Test::Foo modules out there (just try installing Template Toolkit on a less than very modern perl and see yourself get into module hell). The only way I can see of working on this path would be to keep and make our own copies of the needed modules, and point PERL5LIB at that collection. But that would constitute a large extra buildtime burden.
A better solution might be to hack something out of the pure perl DBD driver and use that. It's known to have some problems, but maybe this would be a good impetus to iron those out, and this would reduce us to carrying a single non-compiled perl module (plus whatever test framework we need).
cheers andrew ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
