Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? - Mailing list pgsql-patches
From | Chris Browne |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |
Date | |
Msg-id | 608xv3zaji.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Responses |
Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?
|
List | pgsql-patches |
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) writes: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> I'm concerned that this still gives nondeterministic behavior. >> There's no way to say, "I want readline, period" or "I want >> libedit, period". I'd prefer simple --with-readline and >> --with-libedit, giving one turns off the other, giving both is an >> error. > > OTOH that doesn't provide a way to express "I'll take either". > Given that I'll-take-either has so far satisfied 99.44% of users, > getting rid of it doesn't seem like the best plan. I'll bet that for well over 80% of those 99.44% (was this, by any chance, part of the 80% in the infamous quote "80% of all statistics quoted to prove a point are made up on the spot"??? :-)), that what happens is that the satisfied users have taken a prepackaged copy of PostgreSQL. On my home installations, for instance, I'm satisfied with whatever configuration Martin Pitt did when he built Debian packages for PostgreSQL, and there are doubtless a lot of others being satisfied identically. Those that use .rpms that you manage for Red Hat, or that other packagers manage for Mandriva, SuSE, FreeBSD Ports, and such, fall into much the same category of "satisfaction" where a lot of the 99.44% are being satisfied by the choices of a set of on the order of a dozen individuals that do packaging. Those of us using packages, who are probably quite common, are a big step indirected from this. We don't have a reason to prefer determinism or nondeterminism in this matter; we'll get exactly one choice, namely the choice that one or another of those ~ dozen people make. > It might be possible to set things up so that you can specify "I'll take > either" by writing both switches, and further that the order in which > you write the switches determines the preference --- though I'm not > entirely sure how to do the latter within the autoconf framework. I'll change hats; in my "overseeing binaries used at Afilias hat," my vote would be with Peter, for determinism. I'm not particularly interested in seeing psql "magically" configure itself to slightly prefer one editing library over another; I'd be entirely happy with: --with-readline implying that GNU readline shall be used, and libedit shall not --with-editline implying that libedit shall be used, and GNU readline shall not Supposing we were to change to this "deterministic semantic" for 8.2, I don't see a grand problem, here. It seems likely to me that it might confuse someone for all of 5 seconds when ./configure reports back "Sorry, you don't have readline installed, so --with-readline won't work!" In contrast, the nondeterministic approach requires having extra knobs to fiddle in order to prefer one thing to another. I'm not sure but that "configure hints" are as unattractive as "optimizer hints" :-). To my mind, giving BIG weight to the opinions of the relatively small set of individuals that manage PostgreSQL packages for the popular distributions of Linux and *BSD seems fairly appropriate. -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="ntlug.org" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://cbbrowne.com/info/advocacy.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #25. "No matter how well it would perform, I will never construct any sort of machinery which is completely indestructible except for one small and virtually inaccessible vulnerable spot." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
pgsql-patches by date: