From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
Cc: | Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Replacement for OSSP-UUID for Linux and BSD |
Date: | 2014-05-27 04:30:37 |
Message-ID: | 27745.1401165037@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> writes:
> On May 26, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> This means that if we want to give users control over which implementation
>> gets selected, we actually need *three* configure switches. In the
>> attached revision of Matteo's patch, I called them --with-ossp-uuid
>> (the existing switch name), --with-linux-uuid, and --with-bsd-uuid.
>> I'm not necessarily wedded to the latter two names; in particular it seems
>> unfortunate that the right one to use on OS X is --with-linux-uuid.
>> But I think --with-e2fsprogs-uuid is right out, so it's not clear what
>> would be better.
> How about --with-unix-uuid? Or --with-ext2-uuid?
Meh. "Unix" certainly subsumes BSD, so that doesn't seem like a very
useful distinction. I guess we could use "ext2" but that would just
confuse most people.
> Which one is the default -- or is there one?
The point here is that we won't make a default choice.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2014-05-27 04:40:36 | Re: [PATCH] Replacement for OSSP-UUID for Linux and BSD |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2014-05-27 04:15:18 | Re: Re-create dependent views on ALTER TABLE ALTER COLUMN ... TYPE? |