Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > >> Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Yeah, the last point seems like a killer objection :-(. It'd be > >>> better to add some sort of libpq function to handle the issue. > >> > >> and when I've proposed libpq functions to expose compile-time > >> constants, I've been shot down. > >> > >> How is this different? > > > No idea, what is the URL of your proposal. Keep in mind this is not > > option-specific. > > Hm, I was thinking of something like "bool PQisThreadSafe()". It sounds > like Bruce is thinking of something that'd return a string literal > containing configure flags and then apps would have to try to inspect > that to determine what they want to know. That seems fairly messy to > me; for one thing because it would imply wiring assumptions about > default configure flags into apps, and that's something that could > change over time.
True, but if you go per-option, I can see adding a lot of them. That seemed more messy. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
