Re: bailing out in tap tests nearly always a bad idea

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Does anybody want to defend / explain the use of BAIL_OUT? If not, I think we
> should consider doing a global replace of the use of bailing.

+1

> Best with a
> central function signalling fatal error, rather than individual uses of die
> or such.

Huh, doesn't Test::More already provide a sane way to do this?
If not, why isn't die() good enough?  (I don't think you can
realistically expect to prohibit die() anywhere in the TAP tests.)

            regards, tom lane