Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7fbd4508-23c5-f426-d374-6c72e20bbce9@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/31/17 15:38, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> One major PITA with the AC_PATH_* checks is that you can only override >> them with environment variables that are full paths; otherwise the >> environment variables are ignored. For example, currently, running > >> ./configure PYTHON=python3 > >> will result in the PYTHON setting being ignored. > > Really? That seems pretty broken, independently of how many variables > are affected. But the ones you'd be most likely to do that with are > using AC_PATH_PROG already, I think. Having lesser-used program variables > behave inconsistently doesn't seem like much of a win. Well, if we're fiddling around here, I would change them all to AC_CHECK_PROG if possible. Especially the PYTHON one annoys me all the time. CC is another one I set occasionally. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: