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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Christoph Berg <christoph(dot)berg(at)credativ(dot)de>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Pass COPT and PROFILE to CXXFLAGS as well
Date: 2019-01-22 06:26:21
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 02:55:39PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> 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.

It's been a couple of days since this message, and while my opinion
has not really changed, there are many other opinions. So perhaps we
could reduce the proposal to a strict minimum and find an agreement
for the options that we think are absolutely worth adding? Even if we
cannot agree on what COPT of PROFILE should do more, perhaps we could
still agree with only a portion of the flags we think are worth it?

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-01-22 06:35:17 Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-01-22 06:07:30 Re: A few new options for vacuumdb