From: | Ashish Anand <Ashish(dot)The(dot)Dev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #5250: Tutorial examples(pre-compiled) not present with precompiled binary version of PostgreSQL. |
Date: | 2009-12-22 20:11:05 |
Message-ID: | c92445880912221211s20ff9538x769075af40c4fae6@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I think they just have to be there. Preferably in the form of raw code - as
documentation mentions.
--Ashish.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane escribió:
> >> It looks to me like the unmodified Makefile builds the .sql files
> >> on the assumption they will be used *in the source tree*. So basically
> >> no installer could use that as-is anyway.
>
> > Sounds like something that should be fixed upstream, if someone is
> > sufficiently interested.
>
> First thing we'd have to figure out is what behavior we want instead.
> There are at least two places in the manual that actually say these
> files are in the source tree, so it's not just a minor coding detail.
>
> (In fact, I think at least part of the intention is to have the user
> learn how to build functions from source, so possibly the right question
> to ask is why *should* these be shipped in binary builds?)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-22 20:14:48 | Re: BUG #5250: Tutorial examples(pre-compiled) not present with precompiled binary version of PostgreSQL. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-22 19:53:19 | Re: BUG #5250: Tutorial examples(pre-compiled) not present with precompiled binary version of PostgreSQL. |