| From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(dot)berkus(at)pgexperts(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default? |
| Date: | 2011-05-06 19:14:09 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTimpBOYdd8CsOvr=i_AhKBEUMG4amA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>> I'm getting "paper cuts" quite a bit these days over the differences
>> between what different packaging systems decide to install. The one
>> *I* get notably bit on, of late, is that I have written code that
>> expects to have pg_config to do some degree of self-discovery, only to
>> find production folk complaining that they only have "psql" available
>> in their environment.
>
> Given the other improvements in being able to build extensions in 9.1, we
> really should push packagers to move pg_config from the PostgreSQL
> development package into the main one starting in that version. I've gotten
> bit by this plenty of times.
I'm agreeable to that, in general.
If there's a "server" package and a "client" package, it likely only
fits with the "server" package. On a host where only the "client" is
installed, they won't be able to install extensions, so it's pretty
futile to have it there.
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-05-06 19:19:31 | Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default? |
| Previous Message | Gilberto Castillo Martínez | 2011-05-06 19:01:22 | Re: New Canadian nonprofit for trademark, postgresql.org domain, etc. |