pg.ddx.io  pgsql-committers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:14:10 -0800
Message-ID: <20161114201410.ctgglamtdu2u5yj3@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <22899.1478968932@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <CAA4eK1LaN1xXRgo2BxQGLYoXeNaQTZOoFOf6Qi19WfZkknZKgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160830023140.tsesenk7roajx3ak@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<CAA4eK1JOjkdXYtHxh=2aDK4VgDtN-LNGKY_YqX0N=YEvuzQVWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1Jt5fYe2jnQ7XXDrpy3Z4W80UYhQa9SvCyXz+7mcoN8Gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9k0P=tew0UXETJfM5WQjqNS0k7xYZEFWMZCY8ZuEqRSD1uUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1LJRtV=jBa46F6+=s7cf-x7ajFAraYBdAxaCjZ0m_FQ0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20161112130408.kfsxcbkqo2b3nvuq@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<22432.1478968242@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20161112163508.5uqlaozeyr3l56ae@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<22899.1478968932@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On 2016-11-12 11:42:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> which is a rather blatant waste of cycles. I would suggest an explicit
> >> do-nothing installcheck rule rather than the hack you came up with here.
> 
> > I had that at first, but that generates a warning about overwriting the
> > makefile target - which afaics cannot be fixed.
> 
> Hm.  What about inventing an additional macro NO_INSTALLCHECK that
> prevents pgxs.mk from generating an installcheck rule?  It's not
> like we don't have similar issues elsewhere, eg contrib/sepgsql.

Well, that one seems a bit different.  Seems easy enough to do. Do we
want to make that macro that prevents installcheck from being defined,
or one that forces it to be empty? The former has the disadvantage that
one has to be careful to define a target, to avoid breaking recursion
from the upper levels.

Greetings,

Andres Freund


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (21+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <20161114201410.ctgglamtdu2u5yj3@alap3.anarazel.de>
Permalink:  ../20161114201410.ctgglamtdu2u5yj3@alap3.anarazel.de/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/20161114201410.ctgglamtdu2u5yj3@alap3.anarazel.de

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
  Cc: andres@anarazel.de, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, ashu.coek88@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.
  In-Reply-To: <20161114201410.ctgglamtdu2u5yj3@alap3.anarazel.de>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox