Jacob Champion <jacob.champ...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 3:34 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, the previous reply was wrong; I misunderstood what you said.
>> Yes, that is how the patch was coded and I agree that getting rid of
>> config time PG_TEST_EXTRA could be a better alternative.
> Personally I use the config-time PG_TEST_EXTRA extensively. I'd be sad
> to see it go, especially if developers are no longer forced to use it.
The existing and documented expectation is that PG_TEST_EXTRA is an
environment variable, ie it's a runtime option not a configure option.
Making it be the latter seems like a significant loss of flexibility
to me.
regards, tom lane
