> On 24 Mar 2023, at 00:33, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 10:46:56PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> I'm fairly convinced it's a timeout in the interactive psql session. Given >> how >> ugly the use of that is I'm sort of waiting for Andres' refactoring patch >> [0] to >> commit this such that I can rewrite the test in a saner and more robust way. > > FWIW, I'd be OK here even if you don't have a test for libpq in the > first change as what you have sent is already testing for the core > machinery in scram-common.c. You could always add one later.
Yeah, that's my fallback in case we are unable to get the TAP refactoring done in time for the end of the CF/feature freeze. I've actually ripped out the test in question in the attached v9 to have it ready and building green in CFbot. -- Daniel Gustafsson
v9-0001-Make-SCRAM-iteration-count-configurable.patch
Description: Binary data
