On 7/30/17 12:50, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: >> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 12:05:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Well, OK, but I'd still like to tweak configure so that it records >>> an absolute path for prove rather than just setting PROVE=prove. >>> That way you'd at least be able to tell from the configure log >>> whether you are possibly at risk. > >> That's an improvement.
I disagree with that, unless there is an actual risk. > The reason it does that seems to be that we use AC_CHECK_PROGS > rather than AC_PATH_PROGS for locating "prove". I can see no > particular consistency to the decisions made in configure.in > about which to use: We use the "PATH" variants when we need a fully qualified name. For example, at some point or another, we needed to substitute a fully qualified perl binary name into the headers of scripts. If there is no such requirement, then we should use the non-PATH variants. -- Peter Eisentraut 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