Alvaro Herrera <> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 11/11/15 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I was thinking more of removing the "missing" script and associated logic
>>> entirely, rather than making PGXS a special case.

>> Well, about a year ago people were arguing for the opposite change in
>> the documentation build.  It used to default all the build tool
>> variables to programs that weren't there, and people got all confused
>> about that, so we stuck "missing" in there across the board.

> Ah, right :-(  It's obviously difficult to arrange a compromise that
> pleases everyone here.  I think it's fair to keep "missing" for the doc
> build and remove it from Perl/bison/flex, regardless of pgxs; extensions
> cannot build doc files anyway.

I took a closer look at the originally proposed patch at
and realized that my worry about it was based on a misconception:
I thought it'd get installed into someplace where it might interfere
with other packages.  But actually, it would get installed into the
same place we put install-sh, namely
(omitting postgresql/ if PREFIX already contains something PG-specific).
So the argument that it could break anybody else seems pretty thin.

Given our inability to come to a consensus on rejiggering the uses of
"missing", I think maybe we should just apply the original patch and
call it good.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to