Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Makes sense. I think we could do it without hardcoding those library
> names, as in the attached patch. But it comes out to the same result
> AFAICT.
This has been pushed, but the CF entry is still open, which is
making the cfbot unhappy. Were you leaving it open pending
pushing to back branches as well? I'm not sure what the point
of waiting is --- the buildfarm isn't going to exercise the
troublesome scenario.
regards, tom lane