| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)tigerdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Migrate to autoconf 2.72? |
| Date: | 2025-12-01 11:48:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TOvBM5890Z0N_zONfqKa3JU5EjdA9DuDYbm=NPdaOpwag@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Pavel,
> But when you use autotools for extensions, then you still should to maintain it.
True, but the problem can be decomposed into two parts - maintaining
for the core and maintaining for the extensions. At least core
developers won't have to check if another patch compiles with
Autotools.
I'm not certain what to do with the extensions. It seems that as long
as we maintain Autotools the authors will have little interest in
switching to Meson (or other build system - TimescaleDB for instance
uses CMake; many modern extensions seem to be written in Rust with its
own build system). Apparently we will have to start showing warnings
at some point, and then finally drop Autotools. Unless we want to
maintain it forever.
This being said, I didn't investigate how much effort it will take to
keep maintaining Autotools for extensions.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amul Sul | 2025-12-01 12:01:43 | Re: Refactoring: Use soft error reporting for *_opt_overflow functions of date/timestamp |
| Previous Message | Mihail Nikalayeu | 2025-12-01 11:27:46 | Re: Issues with ON CONFLICT UPDATE and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |