Re: Why do we have perl and sed versions of Gen_dummy_probes?

On 5/11/21 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 5/10/21 12:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't think this is good practice; it implies that any
>>> accidental corruption of the commentary would be carried
>>> forward. I think we should be extracting the commentary
>>> from Gen_dummy_probes.sed.
>> I don't know how likely accidental corruption is, but OK, let's not make
>> the next generation dependent on the current generation of the file. The
>> simplest way around that seems to me to cache the perl prolog, as in the
>> attached patch Is that more to your liking? I also adjusted it so we
>> pick up the first line of code from s2p rather than from the prolog,
>> which is now just comments and the #! line.
> Works for me. One other thought --- do we care whether this works
> in a VPATH build, and if so does it? The $< and $@ references should
> be OK, but I'm betting you need $(srcdir)/Gen_dummy_probes.pl.prolog
> or the like.
>
>

Why would we? It's only used in Windows builds, and there's no VPATH
there (sadly). In fact, building the file isn't part of any standard
build procedure. I think this is probably in the same boat as the SSL
certs we make in src/test/ssl - I don't think those recipes are meant
for use in VPATH builds either.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com