On 11/22/19 3:55 AM, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 9:00 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz > <mailto:mich...@paquier.xyz>> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 08:09:38PM +0100, Juan José Santamaría > Flecha wrote: > > I think Perl's open() is a bad candidate for an overload, so I > will update > > the previous patch that only touches slurp_file(). > > FWIW, I don't like much the approach of patching only slurp_file(). > What gives us the guarantee that we won't have this discussion again > in a couple of months or years once a new caller of open() is added > for some new TAP tests, and that it has the same problems with > multi-process concurrency? > > > I agree on that, from a technical stand point, overloading open() is > probably the best solution for the reasons above mentioned. My doubts > come from the effort such a solution will take and its > maintainability, also taking into account that there are not that many > calls to open() in "src/test/perl". > >
I think the best course is for us to give your latest patch an outing on the buildfarm and verify that the issues seen with slurp_file disappear. That shouldn't take us more than a week or two to see - drongo has had 6 such failures in the last 11 days on master. After that we can discuss how much further we might want to take it. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
