On 05/06/2011 03:14 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Greg Smith<greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Christopher Browne wrote:
>>> I'm getting "paper cuts" quite a bit these days over the differences
>>> between what different packaging systems decide to install. The one
>>> *I* get notably bit on, of late, is that I have written code that
>>> expects to have pg_config to do some degree of self-discovery, only to
>>> find production folk complaining that they only have "psql" available
>>> in their environment.
>> Given the other improvements in being able to build extensions in 9.1, we
>> really should push packagers to move pg_config from the PostgreSQL
>> development package into the main one starting in that version. I've gotten
>> bit by this plenty of times.
> I'm agreeable to that, in general.
>
> If there's a "server" package and a "client" package, it likely only
> fits with the "server" package. On a host where only the "client" is
> installed, they won't be able to install extensions, so it's pretty
> futile to have it there.
I don't agree. It can be useful even there, to see how the libraries are
configured, for example. I'd be inclined to bundle it with
postgresql-libs or the moral equivalent.
cheers
andrew
