On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 09:09:56AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Andres Freund 2019-01-08 > <20190108011837.n4mx7dadvojv2...@alap3.anarazel.de> >>> Here's another revision that doesn't add an extra CXXOPT variable but >>> just extends CXXFLAGS whenever COPT or PROFILE are set, which seems >>> more usable. >> >> Why does that seem more usable? How's that supposed to be used for flags >> that aren't valid for both languages? > > The existing COPT and PROFILE are already catch-all type flags that > add to CFLAGS and LDFLAGS. Possibly we should leave those alone and > only add PG_CXXFLAGS and PG_LDFLAGS?
Personally I see pgxs as something completely different than what COPT and PROFILE are as we are talking about two different facilities: one which is part of the core installation, and the other which can be used for extension modules, so having PG_CFLAGS, PG_CXXFLAGS and PG_LDFLAGS, but leaving CXXFLAGS out of COPT and PROFILE looks like the better long-term move in terms of pluggability. My 2c. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
