From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jakob Egger <jakob(at)eggerapps(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PG vs macOS Mojave |
Date: | 2018-11-02 15:01:26 |
Message-ID: | 1CE1384A-7344-4405-A8C3-AF4C111DEF4D@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 2 Nov 2018, at 15:42, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>> Here's a lightly-tested patch for that approach.
>
> Anybody have an opinion about which approach to use? We need to choose
> one, and PDQ too, if we want full buildfarm coverage on it before Monday's
> wrap.
Sorry for being slow to respond, I was hoping to find time for testing but it’s
a scarce resource right now.
> The main argument in favor of #1 (restore use of -isysroot) is fear that
> Apple's going to force us into that sometime soon anyhow, so we might as
> well just bite the bullet instead of inserting weird workarounds to avoid
> it. But perhaps that isn't going to happen.
#1 is the option that appeals to me the most, mostly because it removes all
possible ambiguity of when/if it’s required compared to #2.
+ Most Postgres developers just turn off SIP, though.
Minor nitpick, shouldn’t this be <productname>Postgres</productname>?
cheers ./daniel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-11-02 15:02:38 | Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-11-02 14:55:03 | Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces |