On 2016-11-12 11:42:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> which is a rather blatant waste of cycles. I would suggest an explicit > >> do-nothing installcheck rule rather than the hack you came up with here. > > > I had that at first, but that generates a warning about overwriting the > > makefile target - which afaics cannot be fixed. > > Hm. What about inventing an additional macro NO_INSTALLCHECK that > prevents pgxs.mk from generating an installcheck rule? It's not > like we don't have similar issues elsewhere, eg contrib/sepgsql.
Well, that one seems a bit different. Seems easy enough to do. Do we want to make that macro that prevents installcheck from being defined, or one that forces it to be empty? The former has the disadvantage that one has to be careful to define a target, to avoid breaking recursion from the upper levels. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
