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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Date
Msg-id 14432.1501529890@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

I'd almost be inclined to say that we should override that behavior
of AC_PATH_PROG.  It is undocumented AFAICS, and it's not amazingly
well thought out, either.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL - Weak DH group