On 05/06/2011 03:14 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Greg Smith<g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Christopher Browne wrote:
I'm getting "paper cuts" quite a bit these days over the differences
between what different packaging systems decide to install. The one
*I* get notably bit on, of late, is that I have written code that
expects to have pg_config to do some degree of self-discovery, only to
find production folk complaining that they only have "psql" available
in their environment.
Given the other improvements in being able to build extensions in 9.1, we
really should push packagers to move pg_config from the PostgreSQL
development package into the main one starting in that version. I've gotten
bit by this plenty of times.
I'm agreeable to that, in general.
If there's a "server" package and a "client" package, it likely only
fits with the "server" package. On a host where only the "client" is
installed, they won't be able to install extensions, so it's pretty
futile to have it there.
I don't agree. It can be useful even there, to see how the libraries are
configured, for example. I'd be inclined to bundle it with
postgresql-libs or the moral equivalent.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
