From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: port _srv.o makefile rules don't observe dependency tracking |
Date: | 2012-05-01 20:43:23 |
Message-ID: | 20522.1335905003@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar may 01 16:25:07 -0400 2012:
>> Are there, or might there be in the future, any "port" files that only
>> exist in server flavor and not client-side flavor?
> Now, there is someone with a patch that duplicates some libpq code into
> psql (pqSocketPoll I think it is) and I was considering suggesting that
> instead of exporting the libpq function, the implementation could be put
> in a src/port/ file instead, so that psql can also use it. I'm not sure
> if that's really a good idea but if so it would be a first file to be
> only in -DFRONTEND form.
Offhand it seems to me that anything that can be built with -DFRONTEND
should be buildable without, so the worst possible consequence here is
having an unused member of libpgport_srv.a. I was worried about the
other way around, where we have something that (say) depends on elog
or palloc and so can't be built at all in frontend form. I guess you
could argue that any such code ought not be in src/port/ in the first
place.
Anyway, I'm not objecting to the patch, just raising something to
consider. If it doesn't bother anybody, let's go with this.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-05-01 20:45:51 | Re: port _srv.o makefile rules don't observe dependency tracking |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-01 20:39:42 | Re: extending relations more efficiently |