Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 11/11/15 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I was thinking more of removing the "missing" script and associated logic >>> entirely, rather than making PGXS a special case.
>> Well, about a year ago people were arguing for the opposite change in >> the documentation build. It used to default all the build tool >> variables to programs that weren't there, and people got all confused >> about that, so we stuck "missing" in there across the board. > Ah, right :-( It's obviously difficult to arrange a compromise that > pleases everyone here. I think it's fair to keep "missing" for the doc > build and remove it from Perl/bison/flex, regardless of pgxs; extensions > cannot build doc files anyway. I took a closer look at the originally proposed patch at http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5633ba23.3030...@bluetreble.com and realized that my worry about it was based on a misconception: I thought it'd get installed into someplace where it might interfere with other packages. But actually, it would get installed into the same place we put install-sh, namely $PREFIX/lib/postgresql/pgxs/config/ (omitting postgresql/ if PREFIX already contains something PG-specific). So the argument that it could break anybody else seems pretty thin. Given our inability to come to a consensus on rejiggering the uses of "missing", I think maybe we should just apply the original patch and call it good. 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
