On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:54 PM Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > Hi > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:50 AM Shaheed Haque <srha...@theiet.org> wrote: > >> My goodness... >> > > Indeed. > > >> >> 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... >> > > I added a request to the discussion at > https://github.com/psycopg/psycopg2/issues/674 to have the warning > removed. I doubt it'll be successful though, so I wouldn't hold your > breath. > > If we build our own Python, libpq etc, then why can't we use *--no-binary* option in the requirements.txt?
> -- > Dave Page > Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com > Twitter: @pgsnake > > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
