Re: Why do we define HAVE_GSSAPI_EXT_H? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Why do we define HAVE_GSSAPI_EXT_H?
Date
Msg-id 20240709000507.5zn5z5ankjplgn6c@awork3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why do we define HAVE_GSSAPI_EXT_H?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2024-07-08 19:05:32 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > configure/meson define HAVE_GSSAPI_EXT_H / HAVE_GSSAPI_GSSAPI_EXT_H - but
> > afaict we don't use those anywhere?
> 
> It looks to me like it's just a byproduct of the autoconf macros
> we use to verify that you have a sane installation:
> 
> if test "$with_gssapi" = yes ; then
>   AC_CHECK_HEADERS(gssapi/gssapi.h, [],
>     [AC_CHECK_HEADERS(gssapi.h, [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([gssapi.h header file is required for GSSAPI])])])
>   AC_CHECK_HEADERS(gssapi/gssapi_ext.h, [],
>     [AC_CHECK_HEADERS(gssapi_ext.h, [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([gssapi_ext.h header file is required for GSSAPI])])])
> fi
> 
> There might be a variant of AC_CHECK_HEADERS that doesn't have
> the default define-a-symbol action, not sure.

Yep, the singular version doesn't. That's what my attached patch uses...


> Maybe it's not really necessary to check both gssapi.h and
> gssapi_ext.h, but I'm not very familiar with all the variants of
> GSSAPI that are out there.

Me neither. I think it's fine to check both, I am just suggesting not to
define a pg_config.h symbol for both...

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pg_stat_activity: make slow/hanging authentication more visible
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Faster "SET search_path"