Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On 6/30/13 11:26 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> If we would treat that warning as an error unconditionally - and I am
>> not sure how easy that is given the way it's emitted - users
>> encountering them, which usually will be on less common platforms, will
>> have to patch configure.in to make things work for them. Which is a high
>> bar.
> We could also look into updating Autoconf. Newer versions proceed with
> the compiler's result. At that point, you can essentially ignore the
> warning.
AFAICT, the result in this case would be that the script comes to the
wrong conclusion about whether ucred.h is available. Wouldn't that
result in a build failure, or at least missing features? IOW, don't
we need to fix this test anyway?
However, if newer autoconf versions make only one test per header file
and not two, then +1 for updating. Should help a bit with configure's
speed problem.
regards, tom lane