Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?
Date: 2009-06-25 13:24:58
Message-ID: 4A437AAA.3040809@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Is there any reason not to remove the include directory in PG_CPPFLAGS
>>> as well? Seems it is equally unused...
>> No. I agree to remove PG_CPPFLAGS.
>
> The second question is, is it worth doing this so extremely late in the
> 8.4 development? After mentioning it quickly in an offlist discussion
> with Heikki, I think our conclusion was that we should wait with this
> until the tree opens for 8.5. It's not a very likely scenario that
> anybody actually has pg_standby on a machine that doesn't have libpq on
> it - since it needs to have a PostgreSQL server on it to make any sense....

Right, let's put this on the first 8.5 commitfest page. It's not a
regression and it's harmless in practice.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-06-25 13:29:31 Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2009-06-25 13:09:47 Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?