Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 7/31/17 16:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe "which" isn't the best tool for the job, not sure.
> Yeah, "which" is not portable. This would need a bit more work and
> portability testing.
Fair enough. This late in beta is probably not the time to be adding new
portability testing needs. However, I noticed that some places --- not
consistently everywhere --- were solving this with the low-tech method of
just skipping AC_PATH_PROG if the variable is already set. We could apply
that hack more consistently by inventing a PGAC_PATH_PROGS wrapper macro
as I previously sketched, but for now just defining it as
# Let the user override the search for $1
if test -z "$$1"; then
AC_PATH_PROGS($@)
fi
(untested, but you get the idea). In the long run I would like to improve
this to force the supplied value into absolute-path form, but I'd be
content to ship v10 like that.
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
