From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Fix OAuth feature detection on OpenBSD+Meson |
Date: | 2025-06-25 07:05:23 |
Message-ID: | 88e3b289-1179-4df5-b2bc-d6260690c17a@eisentraut.org |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24.06.25 22:39, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:29 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>> Note that Autoconf uses a compilation test, not a preprocessor test, for
>> its AC_CHECK_HEADERS, so it uses .check_header() semantics. And this
>> was the result of a long transition, because the compile test was
>> ultimately deemed to be better. So in general, I would be wary about
>> moving away from .check_header() toward .has_header(). But it looks
>> like meson.build mixes those without much of a pattern, so maybe it
>> doesn't matter for now.
>
> I don't mind moving in that direction, but I do want the two sides to
> match. So if it was good enough up to this point to use has_header()
> for our feature macros, I don't think I want to try to change that for
> 18.
right
>> But I'm also suspicious, because by this explanation, the
>> AC_CHECK_HEADERS calls on sys/event.h should fail on OpenBSD, but they
>> do not on the existing buildfarm members.
>
> I think Andres tracked that discrepancy down [1]:
>
>> Gah, configure does pass - because AC_CHECK_HEADER(), if includes is not passed
>> in, first includes what's defined in AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT.
Ah, that explains it.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2025-06-25 07:12:05 | Re: BackendKeyData is mandatory? |
Previous Message | Nazir Bilal Yavuz | 2025-06-25 06:59:19 | Re: Simplify VM counters in vacuum code |