Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Date
Msg-id 1232c099-92fa-beb5-1b4c-5f9d73886c99@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 7/31/17 15:17, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 7/31/17 14:55, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We use the "PATH" variants when we need a fully qualified name.  For
>>> example, at some point or another, we needed to substitute a fully
>>> qualified perl binary name into the headers of scripts.
>>
>>> If there is no such requirement, then we should use the non-PATH variants.
>>
>> Why?  That risks failures of various sorts, and you have not stated
>> any actual benefit of it.
> 
> What I wrote is merely a description of the current practice.  That
> practice was in turn developed out of ancient Autoconf standard
> practices.  There are arguments to be made for doing it differently.
> 
> 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.  Currently, this only
> affects a small number of variables, but if we expanded that, it would
> be a pretty significant usability change.

Plus certain special macros such as AC_PROG_CC don't have a PATH
variant, so you're always going to have some inconsistencies.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?