From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch to install config/missing |
Date: | 2015-11-11 18:47:46 |
Message-ID: | 20151111184746.GI614468@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 11/11/15 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I was thinking more of removing the "missing" script and associated logic
> > entirely, rather than making PGXS a special case. I think we should do
> > our best to minimize differences between behaviors in core builds and
> > PGXS builds, if only because we don't test the latter very much and
> > might not notice problems there.
>
> Well, about a year ago people were arguing for the opposite change in
> the documentation build. It used to default all the build tool
> variables to programs that weren't there, and people got all confused
> about that, so we stuck "missing" in there across the board.
Ah, right :-( It's obviously difficult to arrange a compromise that
pleases everyone here. I think it's fair to keep "missing" for the doc
build and remove it from Perl/bison/flex, regardless of pgxs; extensions
cannot build doc files anyway.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-11-11 18:49:04 | Re: Python 3 compatibility fun |
Previous Message | YUriy Zhuravlev | 2015-11-11 18:30:42 | Re: Some questions about the array. |