On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Christopher Browne wrote: >> >> I'm getting "paper cuts" quite a bit these days over the differences >> between what different packaging systems decide to install. The one >> *I* get notably bit on, of late, is that I have written code that >> expects to have pg_config to do some degree of self-discovery, only to >> find production folk complaining that they only have "psql" available >> in their environment. > > Given the other improvements in being able to build extensions in 9.1, we > really should push packagers to move pg_config from the PostgreSQL > development package into the main one starting in that version. I've gotten > bit by this plenty of times.
I'm agreeable to that, in general. If there's a "server" package and a "client" package, it likely only fits with the "server" package. On a host where only the "client" is installed, they won't be able to install extensions, so it's pretty futile to have it there. -- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?" -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers