Re: PATCH: Compiling PostgreSQL using ActiveState Python 3.2
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PATCH: Compiling PostgreSQL using ActiveState Python 3.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 29913.1313610903@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PATCH: Compiling PostgreSQL using ActiveState Python 3.2 (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: PATCH: Compiling PostgreSQL using ActiveState Python 3.2
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > On ons, 2011-08-17 at 13:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> It's not immediately apparent to me why we should think that >> get_python_lib is less trustworthy than LIBPL; but if someone >> can make that case, I don't have any objection to this part of >> the patch. > The issue, at least for me, is that the file isn't necessarily called > 'config' anymore. I have > /usr/lib/python3.2/config-3.2mu Ah, I see. > LIBPL exists at least as far back as Python 2.2, so its use should be > safe. Yeah, that part of the patch seems sane then. > Yes, because get_config_vars('LDVERSION') doesn't exist in that version. > In theory, it would return '2.7', so everything would fit back together, > but LDVERSION doesn't exist before 3.2. Could we have the code use 'LDVERSION' if it gets a nonempty result, and otherwise fall back to the current scheme? But I guess first we need some details as to why the current scheme isn't sufficient. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: