Hi, On 2023-04-07 11:52:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2023-04-07 15:32:12 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> I don't think we should go ahead with a patch that refactors > >> interactive_psql > >> only to SKIP over it in CI (which is what the tab_completion test does > >> now), so > >> let's wait until we have that sorted before going ahead. > > > Maybe I am a bit confused, but isn't that just an existing requirement? Why > > would we expect this patchset to change what dependencies use of > > interactive_psql() has? > > It is an existing requirement, but only for a test that's not too > critical. If interactive_psql starts getting used for more interesting > things, we might be sad that the coverage is weak.
I don't really expect it to be used for non-critical things - after all, interactive_psql() also depends on psql being built with readline support, which we traditionally don't have on windows... For most tasks background_psql should suffice... > Having said that, weak coverage is better than no coverage. I don't > think this point should be a show-stopper for committing. Yea. One thing I wonder is whether we should have a central function for checking if interactive_psql() is available, instead of copying 010_tab_completion.pl's logic for it into multiple tests. But that could come later too. Greetings, Andres Freund
