Re: pgsql: Fix thinko in previous commit

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looking again at the spoonbill failure, it's striking that it gets as
>> far as plpython before choking.  The symptoms are consistent with the
>> theory that USE_INLINE is getting #define'd by some Python header or
>> other, after having *not* been defined by pg_config.h.  Maybe we should
>> rename that to PG_USE_INLINE?

> Ahh, that makes a lot of sense, yes; and I see that the Python headers
> in my machine do mention USE_INLINE (though this is not defined, even on
> pyconfig.h), so it is indeed possible that on some other machines it is
> defined somewhere in those headers.  I will go rename ours.  Thanks for
> the research.

I'd not tried a build with plpython on my old HPUX box recently, but
looking into its Python headers I find

$ grep -r USE_INLINE /usr/local/include/python2.5
/usr/local/include/python2.5/pyport.h:#undef USE_INLINE /* XXX - set via configure? */
/usr/local/include/python2.5/pyport.h:#elif defined(USE_INLINE)

which means on this box things would have failed in the opposite
direction (undefined references to non-provided external functions)
without the rename.  So that's the right fix for sure.

>> It's (probably) not contributing to this particular breakage, but I
>> can't say that I think undef'ing things like _POSIX_C_SOURCE midstream
>> is a bright idea at all.  Seems to me that could easily result in
>> inconsistent results from reading different system header files.

> Ugh.

The more I think about that, the more worried I get.  It's not just
that _POSIX_C_SOURCE might be defined or not, it's that the *value*
it has affects what definitions you get.  At least that's how it
looks on my box.  So our existing code potentially allows Python.h
to redefine it with a different value than what we'd defined it as,
which could result in inconsistencies between the system headers
included by postgres.h and those included later.  I think this needs
reconsideration.  Not sure what to do about it exactly, though :-(

            regards, tom lane