Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Дата
Msg-id 14432.1501529890@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> One major PITA with the AC_PATH_* checks is that you can only override
> them with environment variables that are full paths; otherwise the
> environment variables are ignored.  For example, currently, running

> ./configure PYTHON=python3

> will result in the PYTHON setting being ignored.

Really?  That seems pretty broken, independently of how many variables
are affected.  But the ones you'd be most likely to do that with are
using AC_PATH_PROG already, I think.  Having lesser-used program variables
behave inconsistently doesn't seem like much of a win.

I'd almost be inclined to say that we should override that behavior
of AC_PATH_PROG.  It is undocumented AFAICS, and it's not amazingly
well thought out, either.
        regards, tom lane



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Следующее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL - Weak DH group