From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_config |
Date: | 2004-07-20 10:34:33 |
Message-ID: | 3805.24.211.141.25.1090319673.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut said:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I doubt it. People can always just read the file to see what
>> settings are in it, and it's not like nonexperts are going to have a
>> variety of different configurations that we're gonna have to ask them
>> about. (Even in the Unix world, pg_config is not really needed when
>> most people are installing one of a small number of RPM-type
>> packages...)
ISTM that if it's not useful we should rip it out and if it is then we
should make it portable.
>
> The point of pg_config is not primarily to debug the installation
> layout for us. pg_config is used in configure scripts to find
> PostgreSQL libraries and header files.
To that extent is it not broken by relocated installations that we have now
made some provision for?
> I don't know if Windows users
> have a similar need.
>
I don't see why not.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-07-20 11:57:16 | Re: PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery) |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-07-20 10:22:33 | Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jason Tishler | 2004-07-20 11:33:25 | FAQ_MSWIN patch |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-07-20 10:22:33 | Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option |