Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writable variables)
Дата
Msg-id 13700.1545946013@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writablevariables)  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: reducing the footprint of ScanKeyword (was Re: Large writablevariables)  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 12/27/18 3:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... that's a pretty thin argument, and if Getopt::Long is present even
>> in the most minimal Perl installations then it's certainly moot.

> It's bundled separately, but on both systems I looked at it's needed by
> the base perl package. I don't recall ever seeing a system where it's
> not available. I'm reasonably careful about what packages the buildfarm
> requires, and it's used Getopt::Long from day one.

I poked around a little on my own machines, and I can confirm that
Getopt::Long is present in a default Perl install-from-source at
least as far back as perl 5.6.1.  It's barely conceivable that some
packager might omit it from their minimal package, but Red Hat,
Apple, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all include it.  So it sure looks to
me like relying on it should be non-problematic.

            regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_dumpall --exclude-database option
Следующее
От: Thomas Munro
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Cache relation sizes?