| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: python cleanup |
| Date: | 2011-07-25 14:30:52 |
| Message-ID: | 8212.1311604252@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 07/24/2011 11:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> [python headers set _POSIX_C_SOURCE and _XOPEN_SOURCE]
>> What in the world are the python headers doing fooling with these
>> macros, anyway??
> The reason we get warnings about these and not about many other things it defines (such as the HAVE_foo macros) is that these are set to values different from those encountered in the previously included headers.
That's pretty scary in itself, since it suggests that the Python guys
know or think that changing those values will do something magic.
I'm worried that they are trying to do the same kind of thing that
we are trying to do with our put-postgres.h-first rule, namely ensure
that all loadable modules match the core's idea of libc properties.
If that's what's going on here, and their idea of those properties
is different from our standard build, then we may have worse problems
than a compiler warning.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-25 14:36:01 | Re: python cleanup |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-07-25 14:18:10 | Re: python cleanup |