Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 7/31/17 16:54, Tom Lane wrote: >> Maybe "which" isn't the best tool for the job, not sure.
> Yeah, "which" is not portable. This would need a bit more work and > portability testing. Fair enough. This late in beta is probably not the time to be adding new portability testing needs. However, I noticed that some places --- not consistently everywhere --- were solving this with the low-tech method of just skipping AC_PATH_PROG if the variable is already set. We could apply that hack more consistently by inventing a PGAC_PATH_PROGS wrapper macro as I previously sketched, but for now just defining it as # Let the user override the search for $1 if test -z "$$1"; then AC_PATH_PROGS($@) fi (untested, but you get the idea). In the long run I would like to improve this to force the supplied value into absolute-path form, but I'd be content to ship v10 like that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers