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