Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set
Date: 2019-09-27 22:03:08
Message-ID: 24433.1569621788@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 2:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think I just forgot about this thread. Shall we change it in HEAD
>> and see what happens? Maybe backpatch, but not till after 12.0 is out.

> Please do.

After looking closer at the code in pg_regress.c, I'm wondering a bit
about PGSERVICE. A setting for that might certainly bring in a value
for the database name, but I don't think we can just summarily unset it.
I don't plan to do anything about that right now, but conceivably it'd
bite people someday.

Another thing that looks a bit fishy here is that the set of variables
that pg_regress.c unsets is very much smaller than the set that libpq
reacts to --- we have added a ton of the latter without touching this
list (much less the three or four other places that duplicate it).
I wonder how problematic that is.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2019-09-28 00:07:39 max_parallel_workers question
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-09-27 21:52:17 Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set