| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set |
| Date: | 2018-03-19 00:28:18 |
| Message-ID: | 18551.1521419298@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-03-18 19:30:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is it sane for pg_regress to unset PGDATABASE unconditionally? Not
>> sure, but if we're generally always specifying a value, maybe that's
>> OK.
> I'm not sure either. I wonder whether we should just make ecpg's
> pg_regress invocation do so? That seems to be the way of least
> resistance ;)
Don't think I like ecpg's tests behaving differently in this respect
than the rest of them do; that seems like a recipe for unrecognized
security issues.
If nobody can think of a positive reason for pg_regress not to
unset PGDATABASE unconditionally, let's try that and see how it
goes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-03-19 00:52:41 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-19 00:25:20 | Re: Flexible permissions for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |