From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Replacement for OSSP-UUID for Linux and BSD |
Date: | 2014-05-27 04:13:46 |
Message-ID: | 1AD0890B-0BF4-41CD-903F-76296C45EA41@justatheory.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 26, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> This means that if we want to give users control over which implementation
> gets selected, we actually need *three* configure switches. In the
> attached revision of Matteo's patch, I called them --with-ossp-uuid
> (the existing switch name), --with-linux-uuid, and --with-bsd-uuid.
> I'm not necessarily wedded to the latter two names; in particular it seems
> unfortunate that the right one to use on OS X is --with-linux-uuid.
> But I think --with-e2fsprogs-uuid is right out, so it's not clear what
> would be better.
How about --with-unix-uuid? Or --with-ext2-uuid?
Which one is the default -- or is there one? Should we use some sort of mapping to select the right switch by platform, or if ossp-uuid appears to be installed?
Best,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2014-05-27 04:15:18 | Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE? |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-05-27 04:11:31 | Re: fix worker_spi to run as non-dynamic background worker |