I will back it out then.
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I am happy to back it out. Comments? [Let me give the author time to
> > respond.]
>
> >> I just looked at this yesterday and I wonder why one would want to do
> >> this. The libpgtcl build works perfectly fine and it doesn't even link
> >> with tcl, so there's little reason to "integrate the tcl-spec" into
> >> things.
>
> My thoughts were pretty much the same as Peter's. We use the Tcl
> compiler and switches for pltcl because it was the path of least
> resistance for linking in libtcl.so. But the libpgtcl interface
> doesn't do that, and has not been a source of portability problems
> --- and it's been around for a lot longer than pltcl (we don't
> really know that pltcl's scheme works for everyone). So changing
> the way we build libpgtcl seems to me to be a risky change for
> little or no benefit.
>
> My inclination is to sail along with the two different build
> approaches for a few releases and see what sort of portability
> problems we hear about. Perhaps in a year or so it'll make sense to
> unify the handling of libpgtcl and pltcl, but right now I'm dubious.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
