Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50463E1B.9030903@gmx.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs
unix_socket_directories
Re: Yet another issue with pg_upgrade vs unix_socket_directories |
Список | 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.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: