Thread: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

From
Fujii Masao
Date:
Hi,

I wonder why pg_standby requires libpq.so.5. We should get rid of
PG_LIB settings from contrib/pg_standby/Makefile? Here is the patch
to do so.

Am I missing something?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

Attachment

Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

From
Simon Riggs
Date:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:50 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:

> I wonder why pg_standby requires libpq.so.5. We should get rid of
> PG_LIB settings from contrib/pg_standby/Makefile? Here is the patch
> to do so.
> 
> Am I missing something?

It's good. Checked and ready to apply.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support



Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

From
Magnus Hagander
Date:
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:50 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> 
>> I wonder why pg_standby requires libpq.so.5. We should get rid of
>> PG_LIB settings from contrib/pg_standby/Makefile? Here is the patch
>> to do so.
>>
>> Am I missing something?
> 
> It's good. Checked and ready to apply.

Is there any reason not to remove the include directory in PG_CPPFLAGS
as well? Seems it is equally unused...

-- Magnus HaganderSelf: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

From
Fujii Masao
Date:
Hi,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Is there any reason not to remove the include directory in PG_CPPFLAGS
> as well? Seems it is equally unused...

No. I agree to remove PG_CPPFLAGS.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

From
Magnus Hagander
Date:
Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> Is there any reason not to remove the include directory in PG_CPPFLAGS
>> as well? Seems it is equally unused...
> 
> No. I agree to remove PG_CPPFLAGS.

The second question is, is it worth doing this so extremely late in the
8.4 development? After mentioning it quickly in an offlist discussion
with Heikki, I think our conclusion was that we should wait with this
until the tree opens for 8.5. It's not a very likely scenario that
anybody actually has pg_standby on a machine that doesn't have libpq on
it - since it needs to have a PostgreSQL server on it to make any sense....


-- Magnus HaganderSelf: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

From
Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> Is there any reason not to remove the include directory in PG_CPPFLAGS
>>> as well? Seems it is equally unused...
>> No. I agree to remove PG_CPPFLAGS.
> 
> The second question is, is it worth doing this so extremely late in the
> 8.4 development? After mentioning it quickly in an offlist discussion
> with Heikki, I think our conclusion was that we should wait with this
> until the tree opens for 8.5. It's not a very likely scenario that
> anybody actually has pg_standby on a machine that doesn't have libpq on
> it - since it needs to have a PostgreSQL server on it to make any sense....

Right, let's put this on the first 8.5 commitfest page. It's not a
regression and it's harmless in practice.

--  Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> The second question is, is it worth doing this so extremely late in the
> 8.4 development? After mentioning it quickly in an offlist discussion
> with Heikki, I think our conclusion was that we should wait with this
> until the tree opens for 8.5.

+1.  This is barely even a bug; it's not worth taking any risk for at
this point.  (It is already too late for a patch applied now to be
tested by the whole buildfarm before we wrap 8.4.0 --- some machines
are on a once-a-day cycle.)
        regards, tom lane


Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

From
Magnus Hagander
Date:
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> The second question is, is it worth doing this so extremely late in the
>> 8.4 development? After mentioning it quickly in an offlist discussion
>> with Heikki, I think our conclusion was that we should wait with this
>> until the tree opens for 8.5.
>
> +1.  This is barely even a bug; it's not worth taking any risk for at
> this point.  (It is already too late for a patch applied now to be
> tested by the whole buildfarm before we wrap 8.4.0 --- some machines
> are on a once-a-day cycle.)

Yeah, that was our reasoning as well.

Attached is a patch that takes them both away, so I have something to
put on the wiki :-)


--
 Magnus Hagander
 Self: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Index: Makefile
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/contrib/pg_standby/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -c -r1.4 Makefile
*** Makefile    10 Nov 2007 23:59:51 -0000    1.4
--- Makefile    25 Jun 2009 13:32:08 -0000
***************
*** 3,11 ****
  PROGRAM = pg_standby
  OBJS    = pg_standby.o

- PG_CPPFLAGS = -I$(libpq_srcdir)
- PG_LIBS = $(libpq_pgport)
-
  ifdef USE_PGXS
  PG_CONFIG = pg_config
  PGXS := $(shell $(PG_CONFIG) --pgxs)
--- 3,8 ----

Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

From
Fujii Masao
Date:
Hi,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> The second question is, is it worth doing this so extremely late in the
> 8.4 development? After mentioning it quickly in an offlist discussion
> with Heikki, I think our conclusion was that we should wait with this
> until the tree opens for 8.5.

That's OK. I'll wait for 8.5.

> It's not a very likely scenario that
> anybody actually has pg_standby on a machine that doesn't have libpq on
> it - since it needs to have a PostgreSQL server on it to make any sense....

My first concern was whether the latest pg_standby can work with old postgres
(old libpq.so).

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5?

From
Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Committed.

Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> The second question is, is it worth doing this so extremely late in the
>> 8.4 development? After mentioning it quickly in an offlist discussion
>> with Heikki, I think our conclusion was that we should wait with this
>> until the tree opens for 8.5.
> 
> That's OK. I'll wait for 8.5.
> 
>> It's not a very likely scenario that
>> anybody actually has pg_standby on a machine that doesn't have libpq on
>> it - since it needs to have a PostgreSQL server on it to make any sense....
> 
> My first concern was whether the latest pg_standby can work with old postgres
> (old libpq.so).
> 
> Regards,
> 


--  Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com