Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2018-03-19T00:28:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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
Commits
-
Make pg_regress.c unset PGDATABASE during make installcheck.
- 5ee96b3e2221 13.0 landed