Re: libpgtcl

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I am happy to back it out. Comments? [Let me give the author time to
> respond.]

>> I just looked at this yesterday and I wonder why one would want to do
>> this. The libpgtcl build works perfectly fine and it doesn't even link
>> with tcl, so there's little reason to "integrate the tcl-spec" into
>> things.

My thoughts were pretty much the same as Peter's. We use the Tcl
compiler and switches for pltcl because it was the path of least
resistance for linking in libtcl.so. But the libpgtcl interface
doesn't do that, and has not been a source of portability problems
--- and it's been around for a lot longer than pltcl (we don't
really know that pltcl's scheme works for everyone). So changing
the way we build libpgtcl seems to me to be a risky change for
little or no benefit.

My inclination is to sail along with the two different build
approaches for a few releases and see what sort of portability
problems we hear about. Perhaps in a year or so it'll make sense to
unify the handling of libpgtcl and pltcl, but right now I'm dubious.

regards, tom lane