Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
> On 11/2/15 4:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder how much we need that script at all though. If, say, configure
>> doesn't find bison, what's so wrong with just defining BISON=bison and
>> letting the usual shell "bison: command not found" error leak through?
> I agree. Something like the attached patch.
I was thinking more of removing the "missing" script and associated logic
entirely, rather than making PGXS a special case. I think we should do
our best to minimize differences between behaviors in core builds and
PGXS builds, if only because we don't test the latter very much and
might not notice problems there.
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
