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
Attachments:
pgstandby_makefile.patchtext/x-patch; charset=US-ASCII; name=pgstandby_makefile.patchDownload
Index: contrib/pg_standby/Makefile
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/contrib/pg_standby/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -c -r1.4 Makefile
*** contrib/pg_standby/Makefile 10 Nov 2007 23:59:51 -0000 1.4
--- contrib/pg_standby/Makefile 25 Jun 2009 04:39:38 -0000
***************
*** 4,10 ****
OBJS = pg_standby.o
PG_CPPFLAGS = -I$(libpq_srcdir)
- PG_LIBS = $(libpq_pgport)
ifdef USE_PGXS
PG_CONFIG = pg_config
--- 4,9 ----
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.com
PostgreSQL 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 Hagander
Self: 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 Hagander
Self: 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/
Attachments:
pg_standby_link.patchtext/x-diff; name=pg_standby_link.patchDownload
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