Re: Regression tests fail with musl libc because libpq.so can't be loaded

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

To: walther@technowledgy.de

Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Date: 2024-03-22T19:44:28Z

Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Allow "make check"-style testing to work with musl C library.
- d82605bcd666 14.12 landed
- 8a92b70c11ba 17.0 landed
- 7651fd387697 16.3 landed
- 7124e7d528a8 12.19 landed
- 3c3f4fd741d0 15.7 landed
- 243e9953281f 13.15 landed
Fix compiler warnings on MSYS2
- 8c6d30f21139 13.0 cited

Attachments

proctitle.diff (text/x-diff) patch

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 09:36:19AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 09:33:38AM +0100, walther@technowledgy.de wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian:
> > > I suggest we use the #ifdef test to continue our existing behavior for
> > > the libraries we know about, like glibc, and use the LD_* process title
> > > truncation hack for libc's we don't recognize.
> > > 
> > > Attached is a prototype patch which implements this based on previous
> > > patches.
> > 
> > The condition to check for linux/glibc in your patch is slightly off:
> > 
> >   #if ! defined(__linux__) || (! defined(__GLIBC__) && defined(__UCLIBC__ ))
> > 
> > should be
> > 
> >   #if defined(__linux__) && ! (defined(__GLIBC__) || defined(__UCLIBC__ ))
> > 
> > With the latter, it passes tests with musl.
> 
> Yes, my logic was wrong. Not sure what I was thinking, frankly.
> 
> I am not a big fan of negating a complex conditional, but would rather
> pass the negation into the conditional, new patch attached.

With no one "hoping this patch dies in a fire"*, I have updated it with
more details, which I now think is committable to master.  Is this
something to backpatch?  Seems too rare a bug to me.

* Robert Haas, https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoYsyrCNmg%2BYh6rgP7K8r-bYPjCeF1tPxENRFwD4VZAZvw%40mail.gmail.com

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.