Re: 001_password.pl fails with --without-readline

Hi all,

Thank you for the guidance and clarifications.

> =?UTF-8?B?T2xlZyBUc2VsZWJyb3Zza2l5?= <o.tselebrovskiy@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> >> I fetched all refs and tags locally and reset my tree to a clean
> >> origin/master, but I am unable to locate commit 34740b9 in my
> >> repository
>
> > Maybe your origin is out-of-date or is just different?
> > What does ‘git remote get-url origin’ say in your local repository?
>
> 34740b9 is there for me, but it's less than a day old:
>
> commit 34740b90bc123d645a3a71231b765b778bdcf049
> Author: Richard Guo <rguo@postgresql.org>
> Date:   Mon Jan 19 11:13:23 2026 +0900
>
>     Fix unsafe pushdown of quals referencing grouping Vars
>
> However, none of these patches are touching any recently-modified
> code AFAIK, so they should apply cleanly even to a slightly out
> of date tree.  I suspect Soumya's failure-to-apply problem has
> a different cause.  The patches I posted were just "git diff"
> output, without a commit message, so I believe you can't use
> "git am" to apply them.  Hoary old "patch -p1" ought to work
> though.

I missed the fact that the patches were raw git diff outputs rather
than meant for git am. I will retry applying them on a clean upstream
master tree and re-run the relevant test suites.

> =?UTF-8?B?T2xlZyBUc2VsZWJyb3Zza2l5?= <o.tselebrovskiy@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> >> While debugging that I got annoyed that a match failure results
> >> in a timeout exit with absolutely no data logged about what output
> >> the test got.  So v3-0001 also changes timeout() --- which creates
> >> a timeout that aborts the test --- to timer() --- which does what
> >> the test author clearly expected, namely just stop waiting for
> >> more input.  (There's a thread somewhere around here about making
> >> that change more globally, but I went ahead and did it here.)
>
> > I've found your thread about this - [1], and I agree, using
> > timer() is better here, we get the stdout and stderr of a timed-out
> > query
>
> Thanks for digging that up.  After re-reading that thread I'm feeling
> nervous about changing timeout() to timer() in something we need to
> back-patch, so I'll leave that change out of the committed patch.
> We ought to raise the priority of making that happen, though.
>
> > Also, thanks for making both "pump until" blocks identical, it seemed
> > a little strange to have them be different.
>
> Yeah, I couldn't see a reason for that either.

I too agree that changing the behavior in a back-patch could be risky
and it makes sense to leave that part out for now while still
addressing the core test robustness issues. I will follow up once I
have re-applied the patches and completed testing.

Regards,
Soumya