Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > On ons, 2011-08-17 at 13:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> It's not immediately apparent to me why we should think that >> get_python_lib is less trustworthy than LIBPL; but if someone >> can make that case, I don't have any objection to this part of >> the patch.
> The issue, at least for me, is that the file isn't necessarily called > 'config' anymore. I have > /usr/lib/python3.2/config-3.2mu Ah, I see. > LIBPL exists at least as far back as Python 2.2, so its use should be > safe. Yeah, that part of the patch seems sane then. > Yes, because get_config_vars('LDVERSION') doesn't exist in that version. > In theory, it would return '2.7', so everything would fit back together, > but LDVERSION doesn't exist before 3.2. Could we have the code use 'LDVERSION' if it gets a nonempty result, and otherwise fall back to the current scheme? But I guess first we need some details as to why the current scheme isn't sufficient. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers