On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 5:49 PM Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:11 PM Khushboo Vashi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 4:54 PM Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:50 AM Shaheed Haque <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> My goodness... >>>> >>> >>> Indeed. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 09:18, Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 6:18 AM Khushboo Vashi < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:24 PM Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 1:37 PM Shaheed Haque <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:28, Dave Page <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:19 AM Shaheed Haque <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> 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? >> >>> > That won't prevent the warning at runtime will it? > This warning arrives only in case of binary. So, if we install the package with --no-binary option then, it will disappear.
> > -- > Dave Page > Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com > Twitter: @pgsnake > > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
