Re: Broken handling of lwlocknames.h

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:26:00PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote:
> > Re: Tom Lane 2016-06-27 <31398.1467036827@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> >> Bjorn Munch reported off-list that this sequence:
> >>
> >> unpack tarball, cd into it
> >> ./configure ...
> >> cd src/test/regress
> >> make
> >>
> >> no longer works in 9.6beta2, where it did work in previous releases.
> >> I have confirmed both statements.  The failure looks like
> >>
> >> gcc -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels
-Wmissing-format-attribute-Wformat-security -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -g -O1 -fpic -I../../../src/include
-D_GNU_SOURCE  -c -o regress.o regress.c
 
> >> In file included from ../../../src/include/storage/lock.h:23,
> >>                  from ../../../src/include/access/heapam.h:22,
> >>                  from ../../../src/include/nodes/execnodes.h:18,
> >>                  from ../../../src/include/commands/trigger.h:17,
> >>                  from regress.c:29:
> >> ../../../src/include/storage/lwlock.h:129:33: error: storage/lwlocknames.h: No such file or directory
> >> make: *** [regress.o] Error 1
> >>
> >> So this is some sort of fallout from commit aa65de042f582896, which
> >> invented that as a generated file.
> >>
> >> Perhaps the solution is to extend src/test/regress/GNUmakefile to know
> >> about this file explicitly (as it already does know about
> >> src/port/pg_config_paths.h).  But that seems rather brute-force; in
> >> particular it seems like that does nothing to keep us from getting burnt
> >> again the same way in future.  I wonder if we should modify
> >> src/backend/Makefile so that it exposes a phony target for "update all the
> >> generated include files", and then have src/test/regress/GNUmakefile call
> >> that.  Or maybe there are other ways.
> >
> > That would also fix the "build plpython3 only" problem I was aiming at
> > in https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20150916200959.GB32090@msg.df7cb.de
> >
> > So another +1 from a packagers perspective.
> 
> Yes that would be indeed cleaner this way. I have poked a bit at that
> and finished with the attached that defines some rules to generate all
> the files needed. But actually it does not seem to be enough, for
> example on OSX this would fail to compile because it cannot find the
> postgres binary in src/backend/postgres. Does somebody have an idea
> what this is about? It seems that we have two problems here.

[Action required within 72 hours.  This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item.  Robert,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
9.6 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this
message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1.  Consequently, I will appreciate your
efforts toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com