On 10/09/2018 02:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-10-09 14:32:29 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> On 10/08/2018 09:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>>>> Rebased again. Patches that touch AC_CHECK_FUNCS are fun like that!
>>> Yeah, I've been burnt by that too recently. It occurs to me we could make
>>> that at least a little less painful if we formatted the macro with one
>>> line per function name:
>>>
>>> AC_CHECK_FUNCS([
>>> cbrt
>>> clock_gettime
>>> fdatasync
>>> ...
>>> wcstombs_l
>>> ])
>>>
>>> You'd still get conflicts in configure itself, of course, but that
>>> doesn't require manual work to resolve -- just re-run autoconf.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> By and large I think it's better not to submit patches with changes to
>> configure, but to let the committer run autoconf.
>> OTOH, this will probably confuse the heck out of the cfbot patch checker.
> And make life harder for reviewers.
>
> -1 on this one.
>
Maybe I'm thinking back to the time when we used to use a bunch of old
versions of autoconf ...
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
