Re: building pg_dump doesn't work
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: building pg_dump doesn't work |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 17291.1236117318@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: building pg_dump doesn't work (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: building pg_dump doesn't work
Re: building pg_dump doesn't work |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I noticed that if you start from a clean tree, it doesn't work to build >> pg_dump because gram.h has not been generated yet: > This patch fixes it. I think this is probably going in the wrong direction. The reason gram.h isn't already in the main include tree is that we don't *want* all and sundry depending on it --- we have very carefully minimized the number of files that depend on the grammar's symbol codes. ISTM that pg_dump doesn't actually care about the symbol codes, it just needs a list of known keywords. Can we refactor things so that the frontend-side version of the keyword list doesn't include the grammar symbols at all? One idea that comes to mind is to replace the entries like {"abort", ABORT_P, UNRESERVED_KEYWORD}, with macro calls PG_KEYWORD("abort", ABORT_P, UNRESERVED_KEYWORD), and then the frontend build of the file could define the macro to ignore its second argument. The way we do it now seems to have other disadvantages too: we are incorporating a backend .o file into pg_dump as-is, which would lead to large problems if there were differences in say the compiler flags needed. In fact, I thought Zdenek had been working on decoupling that sort of thing, so I'm a bit surprised it's still like this at all. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: