On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 06:48:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
>> Should any of these be backpatched, actually? Based on the lack of
>> complaints, it does not seem so to me, but if we are targetting a
>> backpatch of the AIX port, that would be required.
>
> There's no plan to backpatch the AIX port ... but if we can clean
> up this include-path mess not too invasively, I think it might be
> a good idea to back-patch that much. I'm concerned that confusion
> between <float.h> and utils/float.h might be a problem on other
> platforms too.
Noted. Attached is the patch I am finishing with, tested with meson
and configure/make with and without VPATH.
While looking at the whole object dependency tree in the builds, I
have settled down to a reuse of the same logic as guc_tables.inc.c for
configure/make, by pushing down one level the generation of the three
wait event files. These are not anymore saved in
src/backend/utils/activity/, just src/backend/utils/, including them
under header-stamp. Building directly in src/backend/utils/activity/
also works, with two rules in src/backend/utils/activity/Makefile to
force a rebuild. The files are then included as if they were in
include/utils/, with the generation of links from src/backend/utils/
to src/include/utils/, just like guc_tables.inc.c. That's the least
invasive method I could come up with.
I have run out of tokens for the CI this month, so I have not been
able to check it there. My manual tests across all three build
methods are working.
--
Michael
