I think they just have to be there. Preferably in the form of raw code - as documentation mentions.
--Ashish. On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > Tom Lane escribió: > >> It looks to me like the unmodified Makefile builds the .sql files > >> on the assumption they will be used *in the source tree*. So basically > >> no installer could use that as-is anyway. > > > Sounds like something that should be fixed upstream, if someone is > > sufficiently interested. > > First thing we'd have to figure out is what behavior we want instead. > There are at least two places in the manual that actually say these > files are in the source tree, so it's not just a minor coding detail. > > (In fact, I think at least part of the intention is to have the user > learn how to build functions from source, so possibly the right question > to ask is why *should* these be shipped in binary builds?) > > regards, tom lane >
