Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Date: 2017-07-30 16:30:54
Message-ID: 20170730163054.GA2630977@rfd.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 12:05:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 01:21:28AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think it'd be a good idea to insist that "prove" be in
> >> the same directory we found "perl" in.
>
> > Nah; on my machines, I use /usr/bin/perl and ~/sw/cpan/bin/prove. The latter
> > is built against the former, so there's no particular hazard.
>
> Well, OK, but I'd still like to tweak configure so that it records
> an absolute path for prove rather than just setting PROVE=prove.
> That way you'd at least be able to tell from the configure log
> whether you are possibly at risk.

That's an improvement.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-07-30 16:50:10 Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-07-30 16:22:38 Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?