Re: pg_config

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_config
Date: 2004-07-20 10:34:33
Message-ID: 3805.24.211.141.25.1090319673.squirrel@www.dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Peter Eisentraut said:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I doubt it. People can always just read the file to see what
>> settings are in it, and it's not like nonexperts are going to have a
>> variety of different configurations that we're gonna have to ask them
>> about. (Even in the Unix world, pg_config is not really needed when
>> most people are installing one of a small number of RPM-type
>> packages...)

ISTM that if it's not useful we should rip it out and if it is then we
should make it portable.

>
> The point of pg_config is not primarily to debug the installation
> layout for us. pg_config is used in configure scripts to find
> PostgreSQL libraries and header files.

To that extent is it not broken by relocated installations that we have now
made some provision for?

> I don't know if Windows users
> have a similar need.
>

I don't see why not.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2004-07-20 11:57:16 Re: PITR COPY Failure (was Point in Time Recovery)
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-07-20 10:22:33 Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jason Tishler 2004-07-20 11:33:25 FAQ_MSWIN patch
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2004-07-20 10:22:33 Re: Patch for pg_dump: Multiple -t options and new -T option