public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
Cc: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Cirrus-ci is lowering free CI cycles - what to do with cfbot, etc?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 15:06:12 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Hi,
On 2023-08-23 17:55:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <[email protected]> writes:
> > On 2023-08-23 17:02:51 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... unless we hit problems with, say, a different default port number or
> >> socket path compiled into one copy vs. the other? That seems like it's
> >> probably a "so don't do that" case, though.
>
> > If we were to find such a case, it seems we could just add whatever missing
> > parameter to the connection string? I think we would likely already hit such
> > problems though, the psql started by an installcheck pg_regress might use the
> > system libpq, I think?
>
> The trouble with that approach is that in "make installcheck", we
> don't really want to assume we know what the installed libpq's default
> connection parameters are. So we don't explicitly know where that
> libpq will connect.
Stepping back: I don't think installcheck matters for the concrete use of
libpq we're discussing - the only time we wait for server startup is the
non-installcheck case.
There are other potential uses for libpq in pg_regress though - I'd e.g. like
to have a "monitoring" session open, which we could use to detect that the
server crashed (by waiting for the FD to be become invalid). Where the
connection default issue could matter more?
I was wondering if we could create an unambiguous connection info, but that
seems like it'd be hard to do, without creating cross version hazards.
> As I said, we might be able to start treating installed-libpq-not-
> compatible-with-build as a "don't do it" case. Another idea is to try
> to ensure that pg_regress uses the same libpq that the psql-under-test
> does; but I'm not sure how to implement that.
I don't think that's likely to work, psql could use a libpq with a different
soversion. We could dlopen() libpq, etc, but that seems way too complicated.
What's the reason we don't force psql to come from the same build as
pg_regress?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
view thread (13+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cirrus-ci is lowering free CI cycles - what to do with cfbot, etc?
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox