Re: [HACKERS] Testing plperl-plperlu interaction

2010-01-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tim Bunce wrote: Or perhaps put the tests that require multiplicity into a plperl_multi.sql file and add logic to the GNUmakefile to add that file to REGRESS if perl -V:usemultiplicity returns usemultiplicity='define'; OK, here is a patch that provides for running regression tests for

Re: [HACKERS] Testing plperl-plperlu interaction

2010-01-08 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: OK, here is a patch that provides for running regression tests for plperlu alone and plperl/plperlu interaction, skipping the latter if it's not supported on the platform, using the test Tim has suggested. ! ifeq ($(shell $(PERL)

Re: [HACKERS] Testing plperl-plperlu interaction

2010-01-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Hm ... I wonder how badly this fails if perl isn't present? Before you say that that won't matter, consider make clean etc. The makefile does have to parse. It might be sufficient to wrap this test in an ifneq ($(PERL),) or similar. OK, can do that. Also, some

Re: [HACKERS] Testing plperl-plperlu interaction

2010-01-08 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: Tom Lane wrote: Also, some commentary connecting this test to plperl.c's support for two interpreters would be a good thing. ITYM in the .sql file(s)? No, the test in the makefile is what seems to need a comment. It doesn't have to be much. I was

Re: [HACKERS] Testing plperl-plperlu interaction

2010-01-08 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: Tom Lane wrote: Also, some commentary connecting this test to plperl.c's support for two interpreters would be a good thing. ITYM in the .sql file(s)? No, the test in the makefile is what seems to need a

Re: [HACKERS] Testing plperl-plperlu interaction

2010-01-07 Thread Tim Bunce
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 07:07:12PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: decibel wrote: We've actually run into similar issues. Alvaro came up with a patch that fixes our specific issue, but I think he said there were some other cases that needed to be fixed as well. Anyone

[HACKERS] Testing plperl-plperlu interaction

2010-01-06 Thread Tim Bunce
I was investigating a bug in an 8.4.1 production system and distilled a test case down to this: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION bar() RETURNS integer AS $$ #die 'BANG!'; # causes server process to exit(2) # alternative - causes server process to exit(255)

Re: [HACKERS] Testing plperl-plperlu interaction

2010-01-06 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tim Bunce wrote: I was investigating a bug in an 8.4.1 production system and distilled a test case down to this: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION bar() RETURNS integer AS $$ #die 'BANG!'; # causes server process to exit(2) # alternative - causes server process to exit(255)

Re: [HACKERS] Testing plperl-plperlu interaction

2010-01-06 Thread decibel
On Jan 6, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: Tim Bunce wrote: I was investigating a bug in an 8.4.1 production system and distilled a test case down to this: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION bar() RETURNS integer AS $$ #die 'BANG!'; # causes server process to exit(2) #

Re: [HACKERS] Testing plperl-plperlu interaction

2010-01-06 Thread Alvaro Herrera
decibel wrote: We've actually run into similar issues. Alvaro came up with a patch that fixes our specific issue, but I think he said there were some other cases that needed to be fixed as well. Anyone looking to fix this should ping Alvaro first. No, what I fixed was the contrib/xml2

Re: [HACKERS] Testing plperl-plperlu interaction

2010-01-06 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Alvaro Herrera wrote: decibel wrote: We've actually run into similar issues. Alvaro came up with a patch that fixes our specific issue, but I think he said there were some other cases that needed to be fixed as well. Anyone looking to fix this should ping Alvaro first. No, what I