Обсуждение: pg_config

I know it's not critical, but is it worth rewriting pg_config in C so it 
works on Windows (or alternatively writing it as a .bat file for Windows)?

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> I know it's not critical, but is it worth rewriting pg_config in C so it 
> works on Windows (or alternatively writing it as a .bat file for Windows)?

Oh, pg_config is a shell script.  Yes, it should be rewritten in C.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I know it's not critical, but is it worth rewriting pg_config in C so it 
> works on Windows (or alternatively writing it as a .bat file for Windows)?

I doubt it.  People can always just read the file to see what settings
are in it, and it's not like nonexperts are going to have a variety of
different configurations that we're gonna have to ask them about.
(Even in the Unix world, pg_config is not really needed when most people
are installing one of a small number of RPM-type packages...)
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> I doubt it.  People can always just read the file to see what
> settings are in it, and it's not like nonexperts are going to have a
> variety of different configurations that we're gonna have to ask them
> about. (Even in the Unix world, pg_config is not really needed when
> most people are installing one of a small number of RPM-type
> packages...)

The point of pg_config is not primarily to debug the installation layout 
for us.  pg_config is used in configure scripts to find PostgreSQL 
libraries and header files.  I don't know if Windows users have a 
similar need.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Peter Eisentraut said:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I doubt it.  People can always just read the file to see what
>> settings are in it, and it's not like nonexperts are going to have a
>> variety of different configurations that we're gonna have to ask them
>> about. (Even in the Unix world, pg_config is not really needed when
>> most people are installing one of a small number of RPM-type
>> packages...)

ISTM that if it's not useful we should rip it out and if it is then we
should make it portable.

>
> The point of pg_config is not primarily to debug the installation
> layout  for us.  pg_config is used in configure scripts to find
> PostgreSQL  libraries and header files.

To that extent is it not broken by relocated installations that we have now
made some provision for?

> I don't know if Windows users
> have a  similar need.
>

I don't see why not.

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut said:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I doubt it.  People can always just read the file to see what
> >> settings are in it, and it's not like nonexperts are going to have a
> >> variety of different configurations that we're gonna have to ask them
> >> about. (Even in the Unix world, pg_config is not really needed when
> >> most people are installing one of a small number of RPM-type
> >> packages...)
> 
> ISTM that if it's not useful we should rip it out and if it is then we
> should make it portable.

Agreed.  Right now we have a shell script in the Win32 binary directory
that doesn't work for them.

> > The point of pg_config is not primarily to debug the installation
> > layout  for us.  pg_config is used in configure scripts to find
> > PostgreSQL  libraries and header files.
> 
> To that extent is it not broken by relocated installations that we have now
> made some provision for?

Good question.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> To that extent is it not broken by relocated installations that we
> have now made some provision for?

Well, then it should be fixed to take relocated installations into 
account.

Relocatable installations are by nature a pretty broken feature.  When 
you use pg_config to locate, say, libpq, then compile your third-party 
package, and then move libpq somewhere else, nothing can save you 
(except moving libpq back).  At least on Unix, relocatable 
installations are a walking cane when you need parallel installations 
for upgrades, but they'll never work reliably in general.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/