Re: [PATCH] Pass COPT and PROFILE to CXXFLAGS as well

On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 09:09:56AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Andres Freund 2019-01-08 <20190108011837(dot)n4mx7dadvojv2x55(at)alap3(dot)anarazel(dot)de>
>>> Here's another revision that doesn't add an extra CXXOPT variable but
>>> just extends CXXFLAGS whenever COPT or PROFILE are set, which seems
>>> more usable.
>>
>> Why does that seem more usable? How's that supposed to be used for flags
>> that aren't valid for both languages?
>
> The existing COPT and PROFILE are already catch-all type flags that
> add to CFLAGS and LDFLAGS. Possibly we should leave those alone and
> only add PG_CXXFLAGS and PG_LDFLAGS?

Personally I see pgxs as something completely different than what COPT
and PROFILE are as we are talking about two different facilities: one
which is part of the core installation, and the other which can be
used for extension modules, so having PG_CFLAGS, PG_CXXFLAGS and
PG_LDFLAGS, but leaving CXXFLAGS out of COPT and PROFILE looks like
the better long-term move in terms of pluggability. My 2c.
--
Michael