Re: Noisy dependency on psycopg2 versus psycopg2-binary

My goodness...

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...

Thanks, Shaheed

> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>