Re: Noisy dependency on psycopg2 versus psycopg2-binary

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.

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

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