From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Stan Hu <stanhu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL does not compile on macOS SDK 15.0 |
Date: | 2024-07-01 02:06:26 |
Message-ID: | 2585407.1719799586@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't have any great ideas about what to do about this.
> Cybersquatting system facilities is a messy business, so maybe the
> proposed grotty solution is actually appropriate! We did bring this
> duelling Henry Spencers problem upon ourselves. Longer term,
> pg_regex_t seems to make a lot of sense, except IIUC we want to keep
> this code in sync with TCL so perhaps a configurable prefix could be
> done with macrology?
Yeah. I'd do pg_regex_t in a minute except that it'd break existing
extensions using our facilities. However, your mention of macrology
stirred an idea: could we have our regex/regex.h intentionally
#include the system regex.h and then do
#define regex_t pg_regex_t
? If that works, our struct is really pg_regex_t, but we don't have
to change any existing calling code. It might get a bit messy
undef'ing and redef'ing all the other macros in regex/regex.h, but
I think we could make it fly without any changes in other files.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-07-01 02:07:40 | Re: Linux likely() unlikely() for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | wenhui qiu | 2024-07-01 01:52:45 | Re: Linux likely() unlikely() for PostgreSQL |