Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set
Date
Msg-id 20180318234115.efhpjoz2hiphftei@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2018-03-18 19:30:33 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On March 18, 2018 4:06:18 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Hm ... pg_regress unsets PGDATABASE, along with the other related
> >> environment variables, when it has a temp installation but not
> >> when it doesn't.  So what I don't understand is why your environment
> >> doesn't also break every other regression test besides ecpg.
> 
> > All the others specify a database. The issue with the ecpg test is that
> > it doesn't for two test cases.
> 
> Ah.  Well, it doesn't seem unreasonable to want to test that case,
> so I don't think "remove the test case" is the right answer.

Right.


> 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 ;)

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ECPG installcheck tests fail if PGDATABASE is set
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists