Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Dienstag, 26. Juni 2007 16:12 schrieb Tom Lane:
>>         PG_CONFIG := pg_config
>>         PGXS := $(shell $(PG_CONFIG) --pgxs)
>>         include $(PGXS)
>> Any objections?

> Yes.  I think that solution is wrong.  It merely creates other possibilities 
> to use mismatching combinations.

Well, it's certainly *possible* to screw it up, but the idea is that the
"obvious" way of putting in a path will work; whereas before the obvious
way did not work.  So I think it's a step forward.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to