On 07/01/2013 05:35 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 7/1/13 9:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICT, the result in this case would be that the script comes to the
>> wrong conclusion about whether ucred.h is available. Wouldn't that
>> result in a build failure, or at least missing features? IOW, don't
>> we need to fix this test anyway?
> The test needs to be fixed, but with a newer Autoconf version we would
> (probably) have been alerted about that by a build failure rather than
> someone scanning build logs.
I take it you mean a configure failure would occur with a later Autoconf.
cheers
andrew
