Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2016-02-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > 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. For the record: Tom applied this patch as commit dccf8e9e608824ce15. -- Álvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-12-10 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-11-11 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 11/2/15 4:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wonder how much we need that script at all though. If, say, configure >> doesn't find bison, what's so wrong with just defining BISON=bison and >> letting the usual shell "bison: command not found" error leak

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-11-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 11/2/15 4:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wonder how much we need that script at all though. If, say, configure > doesn't find bison, what's so wrong with just defining BISON=bison and > letting the usual shell "bison: command not found" error leak through? I agree. Something like the attached

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-11-11 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 11/11/2015 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. I think we should do >> our best to minimize differences between behaviors in

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-11-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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. I think we should do > our best to minimize differences between behaviors in core builds and > PGXS builds, if only because we

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-11-11 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 11/11/2015 12:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut writes: On 11/2/15 4:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I wonder how much we need that script at all though. If, say, configure doesn't find bison, what's so wrong with just defining BISON=bison and letting the usual shell

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-11-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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. I think we should do > > our best to minimize differences between behaviors in core builds and > >

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-11-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > Currently, config/missing isn't being installed. This can lead to confusing > error messages, such as if Perl isn't found and something needs it [1]. > Attached patch adds it to install and uninstall recipes. I find it

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-11-02 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > > Currently, config/missing isn't being installed. This can lead to confusing > > error messages, such as if Perl isn't found and something needs it [1]. > > Attached patch adds it to install and

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-11-02 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> Currently, config/missing isn't being installed. This can lead to confusing >> error messages, such as if Perl isn't found and something needs it [1]. >> Attached patch

Re: [HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-11-02 Thread David E. Wheeler
On Nov 2, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wonder how much we need that script at all though. If, say, configure > doesn't find bison, what's so wrong with just defining BISON=bison and > letting the usual shell "bison: command not found" error leak through? +1 This

[HACKERS] Patch to install config/missing

2015-10-30 Thread Jim Nasby
Currently, config/missing isn't being installed. This can lead to confusing error messages, such as if Perl isn't found and something needs it [1]. Attached patch adds it to install and uninstall recipes. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data