Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20120904180404.GT24132@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: