|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|To:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Christoph Berg <christoph(dot)berg(at)credativ(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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 06:11:23PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jan-22, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Largely because I think it's an independent patch from the CXXOPT need
>> from Christopher / Debian packaging. It's a larger patch, that needs
>> more docs etc. If whoever applies that wants to backpatch it - I'm not
>> going to protest, I just wouldn't myself, unless somebody pipes up that
>> it'd help them.
> Ah, I see. No arguments against.
Thanks Andres and Alvaro for the input. No issues with the way of
The new PGXS flags would be I think useful to make sure
that things for CFLAGS and LDFLAGS get propagated without having to
hijack the original flags, so I can handle that part. Which one would
be wanted though?
I'd see value in all of them, still everybody has likely a different
opinion, so I would not mind discarding the ones are not thought as
that much useful. New PGXS infrastructure usually finds only its way
on HEAD, so I'd rather not back-patch that part. No issues with the
back-patch portion for CXXOPT from me as that helps Debian.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2019-01-23 00:55:22||Re: Typo: llvm*.cpp files identified as llvm*.c|
|Previous Message||Nikita Glukhov||2019-01-23 00:41:21||Re: jsonpath|