Dear Peter,
> I am still opposed to adding more targets of the form "light-install",
It is a renaming of the previous 'install' target, as the new install is
the previous 'server-install', so it is no different from the current
status.
I let 'light-install' as a compromise wrt Tom view that the default
installation should not include header files, so that it would be still
easy to do that...
> "client-only install", etc.
Ok, as you wish. I just felt it was easy and useful.
> Please discuss this on -hackers. It can be done as a separate patch
> later on if need be.
Ok.
> While I now understand what you are doing in contrib, I ask who is going
> to want to maintain two parallel sets of makefiles, one for PGXS and one
> for in-tree builds?
Yep, that is indeed a good point.
> One who is going to want to use the PGXS ones anyway?
Well, I've been disappointed in the past when I wanted to test a contrib
and had to reconfigure everything to do so. So I really think it is useful
to be able to add contribs as an after-thought.
I really tend to think that there could be the pgxs only version, but that
would break "compile without installing", and you don't want that, as
previously discussed.
So there is no perfect solution:-(
What I can do is to enable the current makefiles to use pgxs if desired by
the user, maybe with some switch, say "make install" vs "make USE_PGXS=yes
install"... I'll lose the clean illustration part but would have one
makefile only and still enable using pgxs if needed.
> I realize they're good examples, but examples should be put into the
> documentation, so people can find them.
Humm.
> Paste your documentation (pgxs.sgml) somewhere into xfunc.sgml, where it
> discusses writing user-defined functions. This material isn't long
> enough to warrant a chapter of its own.
Ok.
> + ifdef PGXS
> + LDFLAGS += -L$(pkglibdir)
> + endif
>
> needs to disappear. There is nothing to link with in there. (If there
> is, that's a bug.)
I think I added it because it did not work without that, but I can recheck
whether it is really needed.
> libpgport should be installed in the normal libdir.
Ok.
I'll submit a new patch on tomorrow to hopefully address all these issues.
Thanks a lot for all these comments,
have a nice day,
--
Fabien Coelho - coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
