| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Christian Ullrich <chris(at)chrullrich(dot)net>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, buildfarm(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_config.h.win32 missing a set of flags from pg_config.h.in added in v11 development |
| Date: | 2018-06-17 14:57:16 |
| Message-ID: | 7540.1529247436@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:49:52AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Okay, this is still an open item. Are there any objections to the
>> previous patch applied on master and the addition of the following
>> undefined flags to pg_config.h.win32 for back-branches? Here is the
>> list of flags which I think should be added but disabled for consistency
>> with the rest and compatibility with OpenSSL 1.1.0:
>> HAVE_ASN1_STRING_GET0_DATA
>> HAVE_BIO_GET_DATA
>> HAVE_BIO_METH_NEW
>> HAVE_OPENSSL_INIT_SSL
> Looks OK.
If we're just leaving them undefined, isn't this purely cosmetic?
At least, that was what I understood to be the reasoning for leaving
such symbols out of pg_config.h.win32 in the past.
I'm on board with making things more consistent in HEAD, but not sure
I see any need for back-patching.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2018-06-17 15:52:56 | Re: Slow planning time for simple query |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-17 14:46:08 | Re: Slow planning time for simple query |