From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replace uses of deprecated Python module distutils.sysconfig |
Date: | 2022-01-23 23:31:44 |
Message-ID: | 1771711.1642980704@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-01-23 18:11:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Anyway, trying to figure out whether we're on a Debian package with this
>> mistake doesn't seem any cleaner than what I proposed. (In particular,
>> blindly changing to a different scheme without a check to see what's really
>> in the filesystem seems doomed to failure.)
> If we make it depend on _get_default_scheme() == 'posix_local' that shouldn't
> be a risk, because that's the debian addition...
Yeah, but we don't know whether there are any versions of the Debian
packaging in which they fixed the file layout, so that 'posix_local'
actually does describe the layout. I do not think that we are wise
to suppose we know which scheme to use without a check on what's
actually there.
I could go for "if we don't see Python.h where it's claimed to be,
try again with scheme = posix_prefix". But I'm still not convinced
that that's noticeably cleaner than the hack I suggested.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-01-23 23:46:43 | Re: Replace uses of deprecated Python module distutils.sysconfig |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2022-01-23 23:29:27 | Re: XLogReadRecord() error in XlogReadTwoPhaseData() |