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
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 |