Re: PG vs macOS Mojave

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jakob Egger <jakob(at)eggerapps(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG vs macOS Mojave
Date: 2018-11-02 15:01:26
Message-ID: 1CE1384A-7344-4405-A8C3-AF4C111DEF4D@yesql.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> On 2 Nov 2018, at 15:42, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>> Here's a lightly-tested patch for that approach.
>
> Anybody have an opinion about which approach to use? We need to choose
> one, and PDQ too, if we want full buildfarm coverage on it before Monday's
> wrap.

Sorry for being slow to respond, I was hoping to find time for testing but it’s
a scarce resource right now.

> The main argument in favor of #1 (restore use of -isysroot) is fear that
> Apple's going to force us into that sometime soon anyhow, so we might as
> well just bite the bullet instead of inserting weird workarounds to avoid
> it. But perhaps that isn't going to happen.

#1 is the option that appeals to me the most, mostly because it removes all
possible ambiguity of when/if it’s required compared to #2.

+ Most Postgres developers just turn off SIP, though.

Minor nitpick, shouldn’t this be <productname>Postgres</productname>?

cheers ./daniel

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-11-02 15:02:38 Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-11-02 14:55:03 Re: partitioned indexes and tablespaces