| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Fabien COELHO <fabien(dot)coelho(at)ensmp(dot)fr>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Eddie Stanley <eddiewould(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, mux(at)elvis(dot)mu(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Frustrating issue with PGXS |
| Date: | 2007-06-27 14:12:53 |
| Message-ID: | 16063.1182953573@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Am Dienstag, 26. Juni 2007 16:12 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> PG_CONFIG := pg_config
>> PGXS := $(shell $(PG_CONFIG) --pgxs)
>> include $(PGXS)
>>
>> Any objections?
> Yes. I think that solution is wrong. It merely creates other possibilities
> to use mismatching combinations.
Well, it's certainly *possible* to screw it up, but the idea is that the
"obvious" way of putting in a path will work; whereas before the obvious
way did not work. So I think it's a step forward.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-27 14:14:33 | Re: tsearch in core patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-27 14:10:05 | Re: Frustrating issue with PGXS |