| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Christoph Berg <christoph(dot)berg(at)credativ(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Pass COPT and PROFILE to CXXFLAGS as well |
| Date: | 2019-01-22 20:10:58 |
| Message-ID: | 201901222010.rsiarcovfmod@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Jan-22, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think its plain wrong to add COPT to CXXFLAGS. Re PROFILE I'm on the
> fence. I personally think the pgxs stuff is a bit separate, and I'm
> doubtful we ought to backpatch that. I'm basically planning to apply
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190107091734.GA1582%40msg.credativ.de
> to 11-, minus the PGXS stuff. If we want that, we ought to apply it to
> master only IMO.
I don't understand why you don't want to backpatch the PGXS bits. Is
there something working today that would be broken by it? I think
you're worried about places that invoke makefiles with PG_CXXFLAGS set
and expecting the value not to be propagated. Is that a scenario we
need to worry about?
The patch neglects to update extend.sgml with the new pgxs variable,
though.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-01-22 20:19:23 | Re: [PATCH] Pass COPT and PROFILE to CXXFLAGS as well |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-01-22 20:01:48 | Re: Fwd: Google Summer Of Code |