On 11/11/2015 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> On 11/2/15 4:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I wonder how much we need that script at all though. If, say, configure
>>> doesn't find bison, what's so wrong with just defining BISON=bison and
>>> letting the usual shell "bison: command not found" error leak through?
>> I agree. Something like the attached patch.
> I was thinking more of removing the "missing" script and associated logic
> entirely, rather than making PGXS a special case. I think we should do
> our best to minimize differences between behaviors in core builds and
> PGXS builds, if only because we don't test the latter very much and
> might not notice problems there.
>
>
At least two buildfarm members (crake and sitella) build FDWs using
PGXS. Of course, they aren't likely to uncover problems with missing
perl/bison/flex - especially perl ;-) But I don't want people to get the
idea we don't test PGXS regularly, because we do.
cheers
andrew