Re: meson: Non-feature feature options

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: meson: Non-feature feature options
Date: 2023-03-13 06:27:18
Message-ID: 6d3310fb-50e3-34d8-fe10-8dd8c4ffdf23@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09.03.23 14:54, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 9 Mar 2023, at 14:45, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> How about we just hardcode "openssl" here instead? We could build that array dynamically, of course, but maybe we leave that until we actually have a need?
>
> At least for 16 keeping it hardcoded is an entirely safe bet so +1 for leaving
> additional complexity for when needed.

I have committed it like this.

I didn't like the other variants, because they would cause the openssl
line to stick out for purely implementation reasons (e.g., we don't have
a line "compression: YES (lz4)". If we get support for another ssl
library, we can easily reconsider this.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-03-13 06:39:52 Re: CI and test improvements
Previous Message Önder Kalacı 2023-03-13 06:22:31 Re: [PATCH] Use indexes on the subscriber when REPLICA IDENTITY is full on the publisher