Andres Freund wrote: > 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 think if you s/extension// in the above paragraph, it makes complete sense to use it for the new src/bin modules. > 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... Why not? It's the standard procedure for building modules outside the contrib/ source tree. I'm okay with reformulating the makefiles after the move, so that these modules are built in our standard, simpler makefile conventions. Let's do that in a followup commit -- then each change is simpler. It's hard enough with all the ugly MSVC stuff. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
