pg_config

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To:
Cc: "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: pg_config
Date: 2004-07-20 20:11:30
Message-ID: 40FD7C72.7060401@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>To that extent is it not broken by relocated installations that we
>>have now made some provision for?
>>
>>
>
>Well, then it should be fixed to take relocated installations into
>account.
>
>Relocatable installations are by nature a pretty broken feature. When
>you use pg_config to locate, say, libpq, then compile your third-party
>package, and then move libpq somewhere else, nothing can save you
>(except moving libpq back). At least on Unix, relocatable
>installations are a walking cane when you need parallel installations
>for upgrades, but they'll never work reliably in general.
>
>
>

Of course, if you rely on pg_config and then move the installation you
will put a very large hole in your foot. But we can't make things
totally idiot-proof - they will just build a better idiot.

Here is an attempt to do the Right Thing (tm) in C.

cheers

andrew

Attachment Content-Type Size
make.patch text/x-patch 1.7 KB
pg_config.c text/x-c 3.8 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gaetano Mendola 2004-07-20 20:58:11 check point segments leakage ?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-20 18:36:14 Re: [HACKERS] Cannot initdb in cvs tip

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2004-07-20 20:36:40 Re: win32 readline
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2004-07-20 19:37:41 Re: logfile subprocess and Fancy File Functions