Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2015-03-10 22:06:37 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I don't think we care one bit whether these modules use pgxs, at least
>> not currently. If we find any issues later on, it should be an easy fix
>> anyway.
> I personally find it quite ugly to use pgxs for stuff in
> src/bin. pgxs.mk says:
> # This file contains generic rules to build many kinds of simple
> # extension modules. You only need to set a few variables and include
> # this file, the rest will be done here.
> I don't object at all to introducing more generic rules for src/bin, but
> that seems like a separate task. And one that should be done right not
> just use some convenient hack. And you can't tell me that
> +NO_PGXS = 1
> +include $(top_srcdir)/src/makefiles/pgxs.mk
> isn't a hack...
I'm with Andres on this. If we can't take the time to make a moved module
look like it actually belongs to src/bin, we shouldn't do it at all.
Code should look like it's always been wherever it is --- obvious evidence
of some nonlinear historical development path just confuses readers.
Less abstractly, this sort of shortcut is likely to be a problem for future
development of pgxs.mk, in that now it will have to support an abuse
it was never intended for; one that works only accidentally (if indeed
it works at all, which I have doubts about for corner cases).
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
