| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5? |
| Date: | 2009-06-25 04:50:57 |
| Message-ID: | 3f0b79eb0906242150t554855d0n5aaa82c9a06427ff@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pgstandby_makefile.patch | text/x-patch | 509 bytes |
| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5? |
| Date: | 2009-06-25 10:14:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1245924851.4038.66.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5? |
| Date: | 2009-06-25 11:33:13 |
| Message-ID: | 4A436079.20102@hagander.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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/
| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5? |
| Date: | 2009-06-25 13:03:33 |
| Message-ID: | 3f0b79eb0906250603m6362498eq5cb143aa54310806@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus(at)hagander(dot)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
| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5? |
| Date: | 2009-06-25 13:09:47 |
| Message-ID: | 4A43771B.9060201@hagander.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus(at)hagander(dot)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/
| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5? |
| Date: | 2009-06-25 13:24:58 |
| Message-ID: | 4A437AAA.3040809@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus(at)hagander(dot)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
| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5? |
| Date: | 2009-06-25 13:29:31 |
| Message-ID: | 19274.1245936571@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)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
| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5? |
| Date: | 2009-06-25 13:32:42 |
| Message-ID: | 4A437C7A.5050705@hagander.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)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/
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pg_standby_link.patch | text/x-diff | 506 bytes |
| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5? |
| Date: | 2009-06-25 13:35:20 |
| Message-ID: | 3f0b79eb0906250635j2b787e2fl288473f2c4674a66@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus(at)hagander(dot)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
| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why does pg_standby require libpq.so.5? |
| Date: | 2009-07-16 10:00:21 |
| Message-ID: | 4A5EFA35.8030006@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Committed.
Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Magnus Hagander<magnus(at)hagander(dot)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