Re: pg_upgrade versus MSVC build scripts

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade versus MSVC build scripts
Date: 2010-05-12 23:07:03
Message-ID: 201005122307.o4CN73O26196@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Now that it only targets the packaged version, I can do with a single
> > shared object, but maybe it needs to be more generic, like
> > pg_upgrade_tools.so or something like that.
>
> +1 for pg_upgrade_tools or pg_upgrade_support or some such name.

I like 'pg_upgrade_support'. I could also do 'pg_upgrade_funcs'.

> > I realize we need a separate pgxs makefile for the executable and shared
> > libraries. My question was whether the shared library directory should
> > be under /contrib or under /contrib/pg_upgrade.
>
> It has to be directly under /contrib, because the MSVC build scripts
> only look there for contrib modules to build.

OK. Should I get started?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2010-05-12 23:11:24 Re: pg_upgrade versus MSVC build scripts
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-05-12 23:02:22 Re: pg_upgrade versus MSVC build scripts