Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> I'm ok with that too, although I do like the warning at configure
> time. I'd go with the template approach due to that, but I don't feel
> strongly about it.
Meh. I did *not* like the way you proposed doing that: it looked far too
dependent on autoconf internals (the kind that they change regularly).
If you can think of a way of emitting a warning that isn't going to break
in a future autoconf release, then ok.
regards, tom lane