On 2022-09-04 Su 09:56, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 2022-09-02 Fr 13:56, Tom Lane wrote: >>> ... However, those aren't arguments against >>> making it optional-to-build like the PLs are. >> That seems reasonable. Note that the buildfarm client would then need an >> extra build step. > Not sure why there'd be an extra build step; I'd envision it more > like "configure ... --with-ecpg" and the main build step either > does it or not.
Ah, ok, makes sense. > You would need to make the ecpg-check step > conditional, though, so it's moot: we'd have to fix the buildfarm > first in any case, unless it's default-enabled which would seem > a bit odd. > > *nod* cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
