Re: [PATCH] Pass COPT and PROFILE to CXXFLAGS as well

On 2019-01-22 15:26:21 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 02:55:39PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Personally I see pgxs as something completely different than what COPT
> > and PROFILE are as we are talking about two different facilities: one
> > which is part of the core installation, and the other which can be
> > used for extension modules, so having PG_CFLAGS, PG_CXXFLAGS and
> > PG_LDFLAGS, but leaving CXXFLAGS out of COPT and PROFILE looks like
> > the better long-term move in terms of pluggability.  My 2c.
> 
> It's been a couple of days since this message, and while my opinion
> has not really changed, there are many other opinions.  So perhaps we
> could reduce the proposal to a strict minimum and find an agreement
> for the options that we think are absolutely worth adding?  Even if we
> cannot agree on what COPT of PROFILE should do more, perhaps we could
> still agree with only a portion of the flags we think are worth it?

I think its plain wrong to add COPT to CXXFLAGS. Re PROFILE I'm on the
fence.  I personally think the pgxs stuff is a bit separate, and I'm
doubtful we ought to backpatch that.  I'm basically planning to apply
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190107091734.GA1582%40msg.credativ.de
to 11-, minus the PGXS stuff. If we want that, we ought to apply it to
master only IMO.

Greetings,

Andres Freund