| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tristan Partin <tristan(at)partin(dot)io>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PG_TEST_EXTRA and meson |
| Date: | 2024-07-17 18:11:31 |
| Message-ID: | 3573037.1721239891@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 8:01 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The existing and documented expectation is that PG_TEST_EXTRA is an
>> environment variable, ie it's a runtime option not a configure option.
>> Making it be the latter seems like a significant loss of flexibility
>> to me.
> I think/hope we're saying the same thing -- developers should not be
> forced to lock PG_TEST_EXTRA into their configurations; that's
> inflexible and unhelpful.
Indeed.
> What I'm saying in addition to that is, I really like that I can
> currently put a default PG_TEST_EXTRA into my meson config so that I
> don't have to keep track of it, and I do that all the time. So I'm in
> favor of the "option 3" approach.
Ah. I have no particular objection to that, but I wonder whether
we should make the autoconf/makefile infrastructure do it too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-07-17 18:48:00 | Re: improve performance of pg_dump with many sequences |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-17 17:25:00 | Re: CI, macports, darwin version problems |