At Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:15:44 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 05:56:03PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Thu, 2 Jun 2022 14:39:41 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote in
> >> 001_basic.pl, but we also need to be careful when sending down queries
> >> with psql expected to fail because of SIGPIPE (c757a3d, 6d41dd0). The
> >
> > This does not need to send a byte after the client-side failure. The
> > connection is rather living after failure in this case.
>
> Sure, but I don't think that we can reliably test the case where one
> of the switches triggers a backend-side error, which is what my point
> is about. I have added a note about that, with a couple of extra
> tests with -f, with both success and failure scenarios. And we'd
> better add -X to all the commands as well. These are added only on
> HEAD as the test file is rather new.
Mmm, sorry about my laziness, and thanks for improving the coverage.
> >> It causes psql to issue a BEGIN command before the first such option
> >> and a COMMIT command after the last one, thereby wrapping all the
> >> commands into a single transaction.
> >> If any of the commands fails, a ROLLBACK command is sent instead.
> >> This ensures that either all the commands complete successfully, or
> >> no changes are applied.
>
> Looks fine to me, so applied down to 10.
(Yes!)
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center