Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default?

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(dot)berkus(at)pgexperts(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default?
Date: 2011-05-06 19:14:09
Message-ID: BANLkTimpBOYdd8CsOvr=i_AhKBEUMG4amA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>> I'm getting "paper cuts" quite a bit these days over the differences
>> between what different packaging systems decide to install.  The one
>> *I* get notably bit on, of late, is that I have written code that
>> expects to have pg_config to do some degree of self-discovery, only to
>> find production folk complaining that they only have "psql" available
>> in their environment.
>
> Given the other improvements in being able to build extensions in 9.1, we
> really should push packagers to move pg_config from the PostgreSQL
> development package into the main one starting in that version.  I've gotten
> bit by this plenty of times.

I'm agreeable to that, in general.

If there's a "server" package and a "client" package, it likely only
fits with the "server" package. On a host where only the "client" is
installed, they won't be able to install extensions, so it's pretty
futile to have it there.
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-05-06 19:19:31 Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default?
Previous Message Gilberto Castillo Martínez 2011-05-06 19:01:22 Re: New Canadian nonprofit for trademark, postgresql.org domain, etc.