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. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
