Thread

1. Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2012-09-03T21:00:15Z

   I went back for another try at building the Fedora packages with 9.2
   branch tip ... and it still failed at pg_upgrade's "make check".
   The reason for this is that test.sh starts a couple of random
   postmasters, and those postmasters expect to put their sockets in
   the configured default location (which is now /var/run/postgresql
   on Fedora), and that's not there in a minimal build environment.
   
   I hacked it up with the attached quick-and-dirty patch, but I wonder
   if anyone's got a better idea.
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

2. Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories

   Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2012-09-04T17:44:59Z

   On 9/3/12 5:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
   > I went back for another try at building the Fedora packages with 9.2
   > branch tip ... and it still failed at pg_upgrade's "make check".
   > The reason for this is that test.sh starts a couple of random
   > postmasters, and those postmasters expect to put their sockets in
   > the configured default location (which is now /var/run/postgresql
   > on Fedora), and that's not there in a minimal build environment.
   
   And if it's there, it might not be writable.
   
   > I hacked it up with the attached quick-and-dirty patch, but I wonder
   > if anyone's got a better idea.
   
   Yeah, I have resorted to putting something like
   
   export PGHOST=/tmp
   
   in all my test scripts, because the above-mentioned issues have affected
   Debian for a long time.  Welcome to the party. ;-)
   
   It might actually be useful if the postmaster accepted PGHOST as the
   default value for the -k option, just like it accepts PGPORT.  Then this
   type setup will become much easier because clients and servers will use
   the same defaults.
   
   
   
   

3. Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories

   Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2012-09-04T18:04:04Z

   On Tue, Sep  4, 2012 at 01:44:59PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
   > On 9/3/12 5:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
   > > I went back for another try at building the Fedora packages with 9.2
   > > branch tip ... and it still failed at pg_upgrade's "make check".
   > > The reason for this is that test.sh starts a couple of random
   > > postmasters, and those postmasters expect to put their sockets in
   > > the configured default location (which is now /var/run/postgresql
   > > on Fedora), and that's not there in a minimal build environment.
   > 
   > And if it's there, it might not be writable.
   > 
   > > I hacked it up with the attached quick-and-dirty patch, but I wonder
   > > if anyone's got a better idea.
   > 
   > Yeah, I have resorted to putting something like
   > 
   > export PGHOST=/tmp
   > 
   > in all my test scripts, because the above-mentioned issues have affected
   > Debian for a long time.  Welcome to the party. ;-)
   > 
   > It might actually be useful if the postmaster accepted PGHOST as the
   > default value for the -k option, just like it accepts PGPORT.  Then this
   > type setup will become much easier because clients and servers will use
   > the same defaults.
   
   Interesting idea, but PGPORT controls both the tcp and unix domain
   socket connections.  Wouldn't PGHOST just control just unix domain?   Is
   that logical?
   
   -- 
     Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
     EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
   
     + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
   
   
   

4. Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2012-09-04T18:07:35Z

   Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
   > Yeah, I have resorted to putting something like
   > export PGHOST=/tmp
   > in all my test scripts, because the above-mentioned issues have affected
   > Debian for a long time.  Welcome to the party. ;-)
   
   Yeah, my current patch for Fedora does exactly that in pg_regress, and
   has it force the test postmaster's unix_socket_directory as well.
   The problem with pg_upgrade's shell script is that it's not going
   through pg_regress: it launches some test postmasters directly, and
   also fires up psql etc directly.  So it needs its own fix for this.
   
   > It might actually be useful if the postmaster accepted PGHOST as the
   > default value for the -k option, just like it accepts PGPORT.  Then this
   > type setup will become much easier because clients and servers will use
   > the same defaults.
   
   Cute idea, but it'll fall down rather badly if PGHOST is a hostname...
   
   There's no time to redesign this stuff for 9.2, but now that I've had
   some exposure to the testing difficulties created by a nonstandard
   default socket directory, I'm more interested in trying to fix these
   issues in core.
   
   			regards, tom lane