Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 07/31/2017 06:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> but could we do something like >> my $pflags = "PROVE_FLAGS='" . ($ENV{PROVE_FLAGS} || "--timer") . "'"; >> to allow overriding this choice from the buildfarm config? > I have committed this in a slightly

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On 07/31/2017 06:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > but could we do something like > my $pflags = "PROVE_FLAGS='" . ($ENV{PROVE_FLAGS} || "--timer") . "'"; > > to allow overriding this choice from the buildfarm config? > > I have committed this in a slightly different form. cheers andrew --

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

"Tels" writes: > So, is the goal you are trying to achive here to be able to say "You need > Perl 5.8.3; plus Module XYZ in vABC if you want point 2, otherwise skip > this step" instead of saying "You need Perl 5.10.1?"? I mainly want to be sure that if we say "it

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On Sun, July 30, 2017 4:35 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > "Tels" writes: >> On Sun, July 30, 2017 12:22 pm, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Yeah, I looked into that. The closest candidate I can find is that >>> perl 5.10.1 contains Test::More 0.92. However, it's not real clear >>> to

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 7/31/17 16:54, Tom Lane wrote: >> Maybe "which" isn't the best tool for the job, not sure. > Yeah, "which" is not portable. This would need a bit more work and > portability testing. Fair enough. This late in beta is probably not

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On 7/31/17 16:54, Tom Lane wrote: > Maybe "which" isn't the best tool for the job, not sure. Yeah, "which" is not portable. This would need a bit more work and portability testing. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA,

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

I wrote: > If we need to fix things so that AC_PATH_PROG will honor a non-path > input value, then let's do that. But let's not make the build system > shakier/less reproducible than it is already. > I suggest that we could inject logic like this: > if

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

I wrote: > Done. I have also reconfigured buildfarm member prairiedog to use > a non-MULTIPLICITY build of Perl 5.8.3, with the oldest Test::More > and IPC::Run versions I could lay my hands on. Although I'd gotten > through a manual "make check-world" with this configuration in HEAD > before

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 7/31/17 15:38, Tom Lane wrote: >> Really? That seems pretty broken, independently of how many variables >> are affected. But the ones you'd be most likely to do that with are >> using AC_PATH_PROG already, I think. Having

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On 7/31/17 15:38, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> One major PITA with the AC_PATH_* checks is that you can only override >> them with environment variables that are full paths; otherwise the >> environment variables are ignored. For example,

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On 7/31/17 15:17, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 7/31/17 14:55, Tom Lane wrote: >>> We use the "PATH" variants when we need a fully qualified name. For >>> example, at some point or another, we needed to substitute a fully >>> qualified perl binary name into the headers of scripts. >> >>> If there

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Peter Eisentraut writes: > One major PITA with the AC_PATH_* checks is that you can only override > them with environment variables that are full paths; otherwise the > environment variables are ignored. For example, currently, running > ./configure

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On 7/31/17 14:55, Tom Lane wrote: >> We use the "PATH" variants when we need a fully qualified name. For >> example, at some point or another, we needed to substitute a fully >> qualified perl binary name into the headers of scripts. > >> If there is no such requirement, then we should use the

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 7/30/17 12:50, Tom Lane wrote: >> The reason it does that seems to be that we use AC_CHECK_PROGS >> rather than AC_PATH_PROGS for locating "prove". I can see no >> particular consistency to the decisions made in configure.in >>

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On 7/30/17 12:50, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: >> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 12:05:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Well, OK, but I'd still like to tweak configure so that it records >>> an absolute path for prove rather than just setting PROVE=prove. >>> That way you'd at

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Noah Misch writes: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 01:21:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Anyway, pending some news about compatibility of the MSVC scripts, >> I think we ought to adjust our docs to state that 5.8.3 is the >> minimum supported Perl version. > Works for me. Done. I

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

"Tels" writes: > On Sun, July 30, 2017 12:22 pm, Tom Lane wrote: >> Yeah, I looked into that. The closest candidate I can find is that >> perl 5.10.1 contains Test::More 0.92. However, it's not real clear >> to me exactly which files I'd need to pull out of 5.10.1

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Moin, On Sun, July 30, 2017 12:22 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > "Tels" writes: >> On Sun, July 30, 2017 1:21 am, Tom Lane wrote: So the question is, does anyone care? I wouldn't except that our documentation appears to claim that we work with Perl "5.8 or

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Noah Misch writes: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 12:05:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, OK, but I'd still like to tweak configure so that it records >> an absolute path for prove rather than just setting PROVE=prove. >> That way you'd at least be able to tell from the configure

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 12:05:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch writes: > > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 01:21:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think it'd be a good idea to insist that "prove" be in > >> the same directory we found "perl" in. > > > Nah; on my machines, I

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

"Tels" writes: > On Sun, July 30, 2017 1:21 am, Tom Lane wrote: >>> So the question is, does anyone care? I wouldn't except that our >>> documentation appears to claim that we work with Perl "5.8 or later". > Not sure how often People use old Perl versions out in

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Noah Misch writes: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 01:21:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think it'd be a good idea to insist that "prove" be in >> the same directory we found "perl" in. > Nah; on my machines, I use /usr/bin/perl and ~/sw/cpan/bin/prove. The latter > is built

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 01:21:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > So the question is, does anyone care? I wouldn't except that our > > documentation appears to claim that we work with Perl "5.8 or later". > > And the lack of field complaints suggests strongly that nobody else > > cares.

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Moin Tom, On Sun, July 30, 2017 1:21 am, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: >> So the question is, does anyone care? I wouldn't except that our >> documentation appears to claim that we work with Perl "5.8 or later". >> And the lack of field complaints suggests strongly that nobody else >> cares. So

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

I wrote: > So the question is, does anyone care? I wouldn't except that our > documentation appears to claim that we work with Perl "5.8 or later". > And the lack of field complaints suggests strongly that nobody else > cares. So I'm inclined to think we just need to be more specific > about the

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Andrew Dunstan writes: >> On 07/27/2017 11:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I wonder if it'd be worth getting the buildfarm >>> to log the output of "perl -V" so we could get a clearer picture >>> of what's being tested. > Looks like this, bit it's rather tedious. I

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On 07/28/2017 08:22 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 07/27/2017 11:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I kinda suspect we're not actively testing non-MULTIPLICITY builds >> either. The 5.8.7 test I just ran was with a non-MULTIPLICITY build, >> so the case doesn't seem actively broken, but I doubt there

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On 07/27/2017 11:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > I kinda suspect we're not actively testing non-MULTIPLICITY builds > either. The 5.8.7 test I just ran was with a non-MULTIPLICITY build, > so the case doesn't seem actively broken, but I doubt there is any > buildfarm coverage. I wonder if it'd be

Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

I wrote: > So the question is, does anyone care? I wouldn't except that our > documentation appears to claim that we work with Perl "5.8 or later". BTW, what actually says that is installation.sgml: Perl 5.8 or later is needed to build from a Git checkout, or if you changed the