Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version
От
Patrick Welche
Тема
Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version
Дата
Msg-id
E11yIRR-0001u1-00@quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk
Ответ на
Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version (Tom Lane)
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