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

  1. Make pg_regress.c unset PGDATABASE during make installcheck.