On 2021-Apr-02, Tom Lane wrote: > On third thought, maybe we should push your patch too. Although I think > 53aafdb9f is going to fix the platform-specific aspect of this, we are > still going to risk some implementation dependence of the libpq_pipeline > results: > > * Every so often, the number of digits in the reported line numbers > will change (999 -> 1001 or the like), due to changes in unrelated > code.
Bah -- of course. > * Occasionally we refactor things so that the "same" error is reported > from a different file. True. (This was the reason for masking F and R, but I didn't realize that it'd have an effect in the message length). > It's hard to judge whether that will happen often enough to be an > annoying maintenance problem, but there's definitely a hazard. > Not sure if we should proactively lobotomize the test, or wait to > see if we get annoyed. I suspect we're going to see enough bf failures if we don't suppress it, because the problem is going to only show up with TAP testing enabled and the src/test/modules tests, which perhaps not all committers run. > In any case I'd like to wait till after drongo's next run, so > we can confirm whether or not the backslashes-in-__FILE__ hypothesis > is correct. If it is, then 53aafdb9f is a good fix on its own > merits, independently of libpq_pipeline. Wilco. -- Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile Essentially, you're proposing Kevlar shoes as a solution for the problem that you want to walk around carrying a loaded gun aimed at your foot. (Tom Lane)
