Re: Noisy dependency on psycopg2 versus psycopg2-binary

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:21 PM Khushboo Vashi <
khushboo(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:49 PM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:11 PM Khushboo Vashi <
>> khushboo(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:54 PM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:50 AM Shaheed Haque <srhaque(at)theiet(dot)org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My goodness...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 09:18, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:18 AM Khushboo Vashi <
>>>>>> khushboo(dot)vashi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:24 PM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 1:37 PM Shaheed Haque <srhaque(at)theiet(dot)org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:28, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:19 AM Shaheed Haque <
>>>>>>>>>> srhaque(at)theiet(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm still on 4.2, but checking the release notes for 4.3
>>>>>>>>>>> suggests it too has the problem of being dependent on psycopg2 versus
>>>>>>>>>>> psycopg2-binary. This results in the annoying message:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /usr/local/lib/python3.6/dist-packages/psycopg2/__init__.py:144:
>>>>>>>>>>>> UserWarning: The psycopg2 wheel package will be renamed from release 2.8;
>>>>>>>>>>>> in order to keep installing from binary please use "pip install
>>>>>>>>>>>> psycopg2-binary" instead. For details see: <
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://initd.org/psycopg/docs/install.html#binary-install-from-pypi
>>>>>>>>>>>> >.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My package also had this problem, and the fix was to replace the
>>>>>>>>>>> reference to psycopg2 with psycopg2-binary in setup.py. I hope that helps,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is not a problem for us - it's completely intentional. We
>>>>>>>>>> need full control over the build of psycopg2, so we can ensure that it, and
>>>>>>>>>> the libpq, OpenSSL, Gettext and other dependent libraries as well as our
>>>>>>>>>> runtime and Python build are all using the same compiler and compiler flags
>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If there's a way that we could conditionally use psycopg2-binary
>>>>>>>>>> *just* for the wheel, I'd be open to that, but I'm not sure how we could do
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, I can see that might be tricky. What, if anything, can I as an
>>>>>>>>> end-user (i.e. someone wanting as little in the way of source builds as
>>>>>>>>> possible :-)) do to avoid the warning? For example, if I were to "pip3
>>>>>>>>> install --upgrade psycopg2-binary" after the install of pgadmin4, would
>>>>>>>>> that be a reasonable/supported thing to do to get rid of the warning? Or
>>>>>>>>> would I end up with some horrendous/confusing mess?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Shaheed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> P.S. I should perhaps explain that we have quite a few Bash and
>>>>>>>>> Python scripts that end up indirectly importing the package, and thus our
>>>>>>>>> log files are sprinkled with these messages...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I had a brainwave. Aditya, Khushboo - do you see any reason why we
>>>>>>>> couldn't do the attached?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After the release of psycopg2 v2.8, the psycopg2 will not contain
>>>>>>> the binary packages (only psycopg2-binary will), this means, we are going
>>>>>>> to stick with this solution for the python wheel even after psycopg2 v2.8,
>>>>>>> Is this correct?
>>>>>>> If so, then is there any possibility, we may face some problem
>>>>>>> mentioned in https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg2/issues/674 for
>>>>>>> SQLAlchemy?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Urgh - I hadn't realised the issue was so complex. Right now I'm
>>>>>> thinking the safest option is to just leave things as they are. It seems
>>>>>> like psycopg2-binary may work for some users, but not others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither had I (@Khushboo thanks for the pointer). I had interpreted
>>>>> the warning as "you need to stop using psycopg2 and move
>>>>> to psycopg2-binary" but now I see that opens me up to potential functional
>>>>> issues as well as pip dependency clashes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect I probably need to go back to using psycopg2, and get even
>>>>> more of these confusing/scary warnings. What a mess...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I added a request to the discussion at
>>>> https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg2/issues/674 to have the warning
>>>> removed. I doubt it'll be successful though, so I wouldn't hold your
>>>> breath.
>>>>
>>>> If we build our own Python, libpq etc, then why can't we use
>>> *--no-binary* option in the requirements.txt?
>>>
>>>>
>> That won't prevent the warning at runtime will it?
>>
> This warning arrives only in case of binary. So, if we install the package
> with --no-binary option then, it will disappear.
>

Hmm, yes - so it does. Let me think about the ramifications of doing that.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company