Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On ons, 2010-02-10 at 18:25 -0200, Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote: Alvaro Herrera escreveu: The general idea seems sensible to me. I can't comment on the specifics. +1. A lot of other programs have this summary at the end of configure execution. The problem is that PostgreSQL has too

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-11 Thread Priit Laes
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2010-02-10 kell 21:17, kirjutas Tom Lane: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: If this doesn't fit in 24x80 maybe we need to find a more compact way to display things. +1. I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-11 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Priit Laes pl...@plaes.org wrote: Also: Hmm.  That implies that you didn't look at the command that you typed but you did look at its output.  I'm not going to say no one does that (who am I to judge?) but it seems kind of strange to me. Yes, strange but I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-11 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Euler Taveira de Oliveira escribió: Tom Lane escreveu: I'm still quite dubious about the usefulness, but I could live with this if someone explains to me how the printout is going to stay within 24x80 given the inevitable growth in number of configure options ... AFAICS, we have 40

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-10 Thread Priit Laes
Ühel kenal päeval, K, 2010-02-10 kell 10:39, kirjutas Tom Lane: Priit Laes pl...@plaes.org writes: This patch enables showing configure status at the end of ./configure run and thus makes ./configure process a bit easier to follow (in the sense of what features are actually enabled). I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-10 Thread Ross J. Reedstrom
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 07:01:19PM +0200, Priit Laes wrote: It might avoid the 'UU, I forgot to enable python support.', after you have waited a while for the build to finish... +1 from me, for that very reason! Ross -- Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Priit Laes pl...@plaes.org wrote: Also, it's quite unclear which items deserve a place in the list. If it's just to repeat what was in the configure command-line, what is the value of that? It might avoid the 'UU, I forgot to enable python support.',

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas escribió: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Priit Laes pl...@plaes.org wrote: Also, it's quite unclear which items deserve a place in the list. If it's just to repeat what was in the configure command-line, what is the value of that? It might avoid the 'UU, I forgot

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Maybe you didn't type it, but it came from elsewhere?  Maybe you're inheriting settings from some environment variable, or a file?  Maybe you're eval'ing pg_config --configure? Yeah, could be. The general idea

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-10 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Alvaro Herrera escreveu: The general idea seems sensible to me. I can't comment on the specifics. +1. A lot of other programs have this summary at the end of configure execution. The problem is that PostgreSQL has too many options. Do we want to list all of them? -- Euler Taveira de

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-10 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Euler Taveira de Oliveira escribió: Alvaro Herrera escreveu: The general idea seems sensible to me. I can't comment on the specifics. +1. A lot of other programs have this summary at the end of configure execution. The problem is that PostgreSQL has too many options. Do we want to list

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: Euler Taveira de Oliveira escribió: Alvaro Herrera escreveu: The general idea seems sensible to me.  I can't comment on the specifics. +1. A lot of other programs have this summary at the end of configure

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-10 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: If this doesn't fit in 24x80 maybe we need to find a more compact way to display things. +1. I wouldn't mind a one-line summary, but a two page summary seems like a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-10 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote: If this doesn't fit in 24x80 maybe we need to find a more compact way to display things. +1.  I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Output configuration status after ./configure run.

2010-02-10 Thread Euler Taveira de Oliveira
Tom Lane escreveu: I'm still quite dubious about the usefulness, but I could live with this if someone explains to me how the printout is going to stay within 24x80 given the inevitable growth in number of configure options ... AFAICS, we have 40 configure options. If we want this to fit in