From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Cirrus-ci is lowering free CI cycles - what to do with cfbot, etc? |
Date: | 2023-08-23 22:06:12 |
Message-ID: | 20230823220612.sglm5g5oxblunst3@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-08-23 17:55:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-08-23 22:32:26 | Re: Cirrus-ci is lowering free CI cycles - what to do with cfbot, etc? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-08-23 21:55:53 | Re: Cirrus-ci is lowering free CI cycles - what to do with cfbot, etc? |