Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?

From: "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Asko Oja" <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?
Date: 2008-07-28 15:51:10
Message-ID: e51f66da0807280851q157d63e8sbd4c40bf98014fff@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/28/08, Hiroshi Saito <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp> wrote:
> Please correct one mistake of mine...sorry.
> This patch solved problem of win32.:-)

You mean the += -lws2_32 must be after PGXS? Ok, but moving
the PGXS line is not right as it should after all variables
are set. I moved the SHLIB_LINK += line instead.

Please test.

--
marko

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-07-28 15:56:37 Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm
Previous Message Hiroshi Saito 2008-07-28 15:31:42 Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext intoPG core distribution?