| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade versus MSVC build scripts |
| Date: | 2010-05-12 22:42:37 |
| Message-ID: | 6774.1273704157@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> If we make it /contrib/pg_upgrade_shlibs, will it need a documentation
> page?
I don't see a need for that. Also, why would you make the directory
name different from the name of the shlib it's building --- or are
you having second thoughts about the present name?
> Can I built multiple shared libs in there if needed?
No, but why would you need more than one? What you might need
(and can't have with the present hack) is more than one .o file
getting built into the shared library.
> If we put
> it under /contrib/pg_upgrade, can it still be a separate build step?
> Would that work?
Isn't that the same idea you just proposed?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-05-12 22:43:56 | Re: List traffic |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-05-12 22:35:18 | Re: pg_upgrade versus MSVC build scripts |