Thread: pg_regress.c also sensitive to various PG* environment variables
Hi all, Following up with the recent thread that dealt with the same $subject for the TAP tests, I have gone through pg_regress.c: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YLbjjRpucIeZ78VQ@paquier.xyz The list of environment variables that had better be reset when using a temporary instance is very close to TestLib.pm, leading to the attached. Please note that that the list of unsetted parameters has been reorganized to be consistent with the TAP tests, and that I have added comments referring one and the other. Thoughts? -- Michael
Attachment
On 2021-Jun-11, Michael Paquier wrote: > Following up with the recent thread that dealt with the same $subject > for the TAP tests, I have gone through pg_regress.c: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YLbjjRpucIeZ78VQ@paquier.xyz Good idea. > The list of environment variables that had better be reset when using > a temporary instance is very close to TestLib.pm, leading to the > attached. Please note that that the list of unsetted parameters has > been reorganized to be consistent with the TAP tests, and that I have > added comments referring one and the other. > > Thoughts? I think if they're to be kept in sync, then the exceptions should be noted. I mean, where PGCLIENTENCODING would otherwise be, I'd add /* PGCLIENTENCODING set above */ /* See below for PGHOSTADDR */ and so on (PGHOST and PGPORT probably don't need this because they're immediately below; not sure; but I would put them in alphabetical order in both lists for sure and then that wouldn't apply). Otherwise I would think that it's an omission and would set to fix it. -- Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 10:08:20AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I think if they're to be kept in sync, then the exceptions should be > noted. I mean, where PGCLIENTENCODING would otherwise be, I'd add > /* PGCLIENTENCODING set above */ > /* See below for PGHOSTADDR */ > and so on (PGHOST and PGPORT probably don't need this because they're > immediately below; not sure; but I would put them in alphabetical order > in both lists for sure and then that wouldn't apply). Otherwise I would > think that it's an omission and would set to fix it. Good idea, thanks. I'll add comments for each one that cannot be unsetted. -- Michael
Attachment
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 09:10:06AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Good idea, thanks. I'll add comments for each one that cannot be > unsetted. And done, finally. -- Michael