Re: Fix order of checking ICU options in initdb and create database

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Марина Полякова <polyakova(dot)marina69(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Marina Polyakova <m(dot)polyakova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fix order of checking ICU options in initdb and create database
Date: 2022-11-19 12:51:35
Message-ID: a34a8668-6b1a-5ca4-0f5d-4592a5a5977d@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 19.11.22 13:12, Марина Полякова wrote:
>> I'm not in favor of changing this. The existing code intentionally
>> tries to centralize the "ICU is not supported in this build" knowledge
>> in few places. Your patch tries to make this check early, but in the
>> process adds more places where ICU support needs to be checked
>> explicitly. This increases the code size and also creates a future
>> burden to maintain that level of checking. I think building without ICU
>> should be considered a marginal configuration at this point, so we don't
>> need to go out of our way to create a perfect user experience for this
>> configuration, as long as we check somewhere in the end.
> Maybe this should be written in the documentation [1] or --with-icu
> should be used by default? As a developer I usually check something
> with the simplest configure run to make sure other options do not
> affect the checked behaviour. And some other developers in our company
> also use simple configure runs, without --with-icu etc.

Well, this isn't a hard rule, just my opinion and where I see the world
moving. It's similar to --with-openssl and --with-lz4 etc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2022-11-19 13:44:26 Re: More efficient build farm animal wakeup?
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2022-11-19 12:35:42 Re: More efficient build farm animal wakeup?