Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
Искать
От
Patrick Welche
Тема
Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version
Дата
Msg-id
E11yIRR-0001u1-00@quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
initdb / pg_version "Patrick Welche" <prlw1@newn.cam.ac.uk>
Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version "Patrick Welche" <prlw1@newn.cam.ac.uk>
Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@DoCS.UU.SE>
Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> The dependency on a phony submake target is the problem;
> need to put in real dependencies for version.o instead.
> Might be easier if version.c were removed from .../utils
> and put in bin/pg_version.

Agreed, though not sure what is best. utils/version.c defines
 ValidatePgVersion SetPgVersion

exported in include/version.h. The only source files which reference them
are:

backend/postmaster/postmaster.c uses ValidatePgVersion
bin/pg_version/pg_version.c     uses SetPgVersion
backend/utils/init/postinit.c   uses ValidatePgVersion

Now, postmaster and postinit don't have the same problem as pg_version
as they both link against SUBSYS.o rather than version.o. I also note that
there are lots of mentions of version.o in backend/Makefile that I don't
follow.

Cheers,

Patrick

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] dumpall prob
От: Patrick Welche
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] dumpall prob
FAQ