On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 06:11:23PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2019-Jan-22, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Largely because I think it's an independent patch from the CXXOPT need
>> from Christopher / Debian packaging. It's a larger patch, that needs
>> more docs etc. If whoever applies that wants to backpatch it - I'm not
>> going to protest, I just wouldn't myself, unless somebody pipes up that
>> it'd help them.
>
> Ah, I see. No arguments against.
Thanks Andres and Alvaro for the input. No issues with the way of
Andres proposes.
The new PGXS flags would be I think useful to make sure
that things for CFLAGS and LDFLAGS get propagated without having to
hijack the original flags, so I can handle that part. Which one would
be wanted though?
- PG_CXXFLAGS
- PG_LDFLAGS
- PG_CFLAGS
I'd see value in all of them, still everybody has likely a different
opinion, so I would not mind discarding the ones are not thought as
that much useful. New PGXS infrastructure usually finds only its way
on HEAD, so I'd rather not back-patch that part. No issues with the
back-patch portion for CXXOPT from me as that helps Debian.
Thanks,
--
Michael
