From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h |
Date: | 2021-11-16 18:57:15 |
Message-ID: | CAOuzzgrSQSUYAGXjTYTKx+RsX42OzxzLdoHBEPEFQ6boJRwsqA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 13:16 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
wrote:
> On 2021-Nov-16, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > Not against possibly changing that but I don’t get the point of including
> > be-gssapi-common.h if it’s not enabled in the build and typically if
> GSSAPI
> > is possible and the reason for including be-gssapi-common.h then there’s
> > other things that need to be under a ifdef, again, as in auth.c
>
> BTW, this is exactly why my first suggestion was to add an exclusion
> rule to headerscheck so that be-gssapi-common.h is not verified by that
> script. After re-reading your response, that looks like a reasonable
> answer too.
Yeah, that seems better to me, though I’ve not yet had time to look deeply
into any of this.
Thanks,
Stephen
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-16 20:12:07 | Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-11-16 18:16:45 | Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-11-16 19:27:29 | Re: RecoveryInProgress() has critical side effects |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-11-16 18:51:16 | Re: RecoveryInProgress() has critical side effects |