Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Thread: pg_config_h.in not up-to-date

pg_config_h.in not up-to-date

From
Antonin Houska
Date:
When I run "autoreconf" on the master branch, git generates the diff
below. Shouldn't it just be applied? I suppose someone changed configure.ac
and forgot to update the generated file.

-- 
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com
Attachment

Re: pg_config_h.in not up-to-date

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> writes:
> When I run "autoreconf" on the master branch, git generates the diff
> below. Shouldn't it just be applied? I suppose someone changed configure.ac
> and forgot to update the generated file.

Yeah, looks like fe61df7f8 is at fault.  Michael?

            regards, tom lane

Re: pg_config_h.in not up-to-date

From
Michael Paquier
Date:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 01:42:38AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> writes:
>> When I run "autoreconf" on the master branch, git generates the diff
>> below. Shouldn't it just be applied? I suppose someone changed configure.ac
>> and forgot to update the generated file.
>
> Yeah, looks like fe61df7f8 is at fault.  Michael?

Indeed, thanks.  It looks like a "git add" that was fat-fingered.  I
would like to make things more consistent with the attached.
Thoughts?
--
Michael
Attachment

Re: pg_config_h.in not up-to-date

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> Indeed, thanks.  It looks like a "git add" that was fat-fingered.  I
> would like to make things more consistent with the attached.

+1, but I think the first period in this comment is redundant:

+  AC_DEFINE([USE_OPENSSL], 1, [Define to 1 to build with OpenSSL support. (--with-ssl=openssl).])

            regards, tom lane

Re: pg_config_h.in not up-to-date

From
Michael Paquier
Date:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 02:21:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> > Indeed, thanks.  It looks like a "git add" that was fat-fingered.  I
> > would like to make things more consistent with the attached.
>
> +1, but I think the first period in this comment is redundant:
>
> +  AC_DEFINE([USE_OPENSSL], 1, [Define to 1 to build with OpenSSL support. (--with-ssl=openssl).])

I guess that you mean the second period here to be more consistent
with the others?  That would mean the following diff:
+  AC_DEFINE([USE_OPENSSL], 1, [Define to 1 to build with OpenSSL support. (--with-ssl=openssl)])
--
Michael
Attachment

Re: pg_config_h.in not up-to-date

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 02:21:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1, but I think the first period in this comment is redundant:
>> +  AC_DEFINE([USE_OPENSSL], 1, [Define to 1 to build with OpenSSL support. (--with-ssl=openssl).])

> I guess that you mean the second period here to be more consistent
> with the others?  That would mean the following diff:
> +  AC_DEFINE([USE_OPENSSL], 1, [Define to 1 to build with OpenSSL support. (--with-ssl=openssl)])

Hm.  It should be consistent with the rest, for sure.  Personally I'd put
the only period at the end, but I suppose we should stick with the
prevailing style if there is one.

            regards, tom lane