Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories
Date
Msg-id 50463E1B.9030903@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Farina
Date:
Subject: Re: txid failed epoch increment, again, aka 6291
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories