Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think you should leave the $(libpq) macro alone and add a $(libpgport)
>> macro ... and yes, you will have to go around and modify the client
>> program Makefiles individually.
> How is this? It creates a new $(libpq_only) for library usage.
> ecpglib/Makefile is the only place I saw that can use it.
I think you are creating long-term confusion in order to save yourself a
little bit of editing work. I don't object to having a combined macro
but it shouldn't be called $(libpq). Maybe $(libpq_plus_support)
or something like that ... or even libpq_plus_libpgport ...
Also think about whether the hack in Makefile.global to add PTHREAD_LIBS
to $(libpq) ought to add them to $(libpq_plus_support) instead. I'm
not sure about that one ... it might be that you cannot link libpq
successfully without PTHREAD_LIBS in the cases where the hack fires.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2005-03-25 03:19:00|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Approximate count(*)|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-03-25 02:57:54|
|Subject: Re: Makefile breakage|