From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Kardos, Dr(dot) Andreas" <kardos(at)repas-aeg(dot)de>, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR) (Re: Call for porting reports) |
Date: | 2000-04-13 06:21:33 |
Message-ID: | 9405.955606893@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-ports |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> OK, I think that's a bug in the Makefile: it should be checking
>> USE_PERL to decide whether to create a build rule for sql-help.h
>> (Peter, do you agree)?
> No. USE_PERL depends on configure --with-perl, which is something
> completely different. The answer is to use AC_CHECK_PROGS(perl, PERL).
That doesn't strike me as sufficient; it is quite likely that that will
find a perl 4. Does your help-building script run on perl 4? If not,
you need a more careful check on what sort of perl you have found.
If you want to test for perl 5, go for it. If not, look at USE_PERL,
which puts it on the user's shoulders to make sure that he's got a
compatible perl.
> The
> alternative answer is to use perl unconditionally and say "too bad, if you
> are not using the distribution you need Perl". The latter actually looks
> cleaner to me now. (After all, the only time the file is rebuilt is when
> the docs change (what user does that?) or the very first time. In the
> latter case doing nothing is not really the answer either.)
No, not good. We've seen a number of problems due to timestamps being
out of sync in tarballs. It's better to build psql with a slightly
out-of-date helpfile than to fail to build it at all. So, the Makefile
should be set up to apply the build rule if a usable perl is available,
otherwise not.
> Have we reached any consensus on making ONLY_REUSE_INET_SOCKETS the
> default (i.e., removing it)? I'm no socket sort of guy but the
> documentation clearly states that address reusing is only defined for Inet
> sockets.
I've stated twice now that I thought that we should never try to do
setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR) on the Unix socket. I am going to remove
the ifdef check tomorrow, unless you beat me to it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-04-13 16:43:01 | [Fwd: [HACKERS] Porting reports (cont'd)] |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-04-13 02:04:27 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR) (Re: Call for porting reports) |