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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to