Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | d0885e1f-3c0b-425f-a50c-2ba0fca1ce8a@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-02-03 Mo 3:42 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > Hi Peter, > >> prefix= should only be set when running the "install" target, not when building (make all). > I see. I confirm that works. Still, don’t all the other parameters work when passed to any/all targets? Should this onehave an extension-specific name? IDK, I don't understand what you think you're saying when you specify --prefix to an extension build (as opposed to an install). > >>> So I suspect the issue is that, when looking for SQL files, the patch needs to use the directory parameter[4] when it’sset --- and it can be an absolute path! Honestly I think there’s a case to be made for eliminating that parameter. >> Possibly. I didn't know why extensions would use that parameter, before you showed an example. > ISTM it does more harm than good. The location of extension files should be highly predictable. I think the search pathfunctionality mitigates the need for this parameter, and it should be dropped. I agree that we should either drop the "directory" directive or fix this patch so it doesn't break it. I have never used the directive, not sure I was even aware of its existence, so I have no objection to dropping it. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: