Pulp

The PyPI landing page for psychopg2-binary says the following, FWIW:

The binary package is a practical choice for development and testing but in production it is advised to use the package built from sources.

The reason psycopg2-binary was separated from psycopg2 is because of occasional errors that resulted from different versions of libssl being imported by psycopg2-binary and by urllib/requests. [0]
Pulp does not use urlib nor requests to open https connections (AFAICT asyncio does not use libssl)

I think we should separate out this dependency for rpm packages and pypi packages. We have no way of ensuring the existence of build tools and runtime libraries on the client with python only dependencies.
We should work with the build team to ensure that the necessary build dependencies [1] for psycopg2 exist for the RPM package and depend on a source build for our rpm package, but continue using the binary for pypi installs

[0] http://initd.org/psycopg/articles/2018/02/08/psycopg-274-released
[1] http://initd.org/psycopg/docs/install.html#build-prerequisites

I've mentioned this to pcreech, he pointed out that psycopg2 already has a rpm built: https://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/7/sclo/x86_64/rh/rh-python36/
and we can just depend on that for our rpm :)