My goodness... On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 09:18, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> Hi > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:18 AM Khushboo Vashi < > khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:24 PM Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 1:37 PM Shaheed Haque <srha...@theiet.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:28, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:19 AM Shaheed Haque <srha...@theiet.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm still on 4.2, but checking the release notes for 4.3 suggests it >>>>>> too has the problem of being dependent on psycopg2 versus >>>>>> psycopg2-binary. >>>>>> This results in the annoying message: >>>>>> >>>>>> /usr/local/lib/python3.6/dist-packages/psycopg2/__init__.py:144: >>>>>>> UserWarning: The psycopg2 wheel package will be renamed from release >>>>>>> 2.8; >>>>>>> in order to keep installing from binary please use "pip install >>>>>>> psycopg2-binary" instead. For details see: < >>>>>>> http://initd.org/psycopg/docs/install.html#binary-install-from-pypi >>>>>>> >. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My package also had this problem, and the fix was to replace the >>>>>> reference to psycopg2 with psycopg2-binary in setup.py. I hope that >>>>>> helps, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is not a problem for us - it's completely intentional. We need >>>>> full control over the build of psycopg2, so we can ensure that it, and the >>>>> libpq, OpenSSL, Gettext and other dependent libraries as well as our >>>>> runtime and Python build are all using the same compiler and compiler >>>>> flags >>>>> etc. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That makes sense. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If there's a way that we could conditionally use psycopg2-binary >>>>> *just* for the wheel, I'd be open to that, but I'm not sure how we could >>>>> do >>>>> it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> OK, I can see that might be tricky. What, if anything, can I as an >>>> end-user (i.e. someone wanting as little in the way of source builds as >>>> possible :-)) do to avoid the warning? For example, if I were to "pip3 >>>> install --upgrade psycopg2-binary" after the install of pgadmin4, would >>>> that be a reasonable/supported thing to do to get rid of the warning? Or >>>> would I end up with some horrendous/confusing mess? >>>> >>>> Thanks, Shaheed >>>> >>>> P.S. I should perhaps explain that we have quite a few Bash and Python >>>> scripts that end up indirectly importing the package, and thus our log >>>> files are sprinkled with these messages... >>>> >>> >>> I had a brainwave. Aditya, Khushboo - do you see any reason why we >>> couldn't do the attached? >>> >> After the release of psycopg2 v2.8, the psycopg2 will not contain the >> binary packages (only psycopg2-binary will), this means, we are going to >> stick with this solution for the python wheel even after psycopg2 v2.8, Is >> this correct? >> If so, then is there any possibility, we may face some problem mentioned >> in https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg2/issues/674 for SQLAlchemy? >> > > Urgh - I hadn't realised the issue was so complex. Right now I'm thinking > the safest option is to just leave things as they are. It seems like > psycopg2-binary may work for some users, but not others. > Neither had I (@Khushboo thanks for the pointer). I had interpreted the warning as "you need to stop using psycopg2 and move to psycopg2-binary" but now I see that opens me up to potential functional issues as well as pip dependency clashes. I suspect I probably need to go back to using psycopg2, and get even more of these confusing/scary warnings. What a mess... Thanks, Shaheed > -- > Dave Page > Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com > Twitter: @pgsnake > > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
