Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 17:10:58 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Christoph Berg <christoph.berg@credativ.de>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Pass COPT and PROFILE to CXXFLAGS as well
Message-ID: <201901222010.rsiarcovfmod@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190122200002.nzw2xdtzpxd5mh7o@alap3.anarazel.de>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-1013-2c1e88
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Jan-22, Andres Freund wrote:

> I think its plain wrong to add COPT to CXXFLAGS. Re PROFILE I'm on the
> fence.  I personally think the pgxs stuff is a bit separate, and I'm
> doubtful we ought to backpatch that.  I'm basically planning to apply
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190107091734.GA1582%40msg.credativ.de
> to 11-, minus the PGXS stuff. If we want that, we ought to apply it to
> master only IMO.

I don't understand why you don't want to backpatch the PGXS bits.  Is
there something working today that would be broken by it?  I think
you're worried about places that invoke makefiles with PG_CXXFLAGS set
and expecting the value not to be propagated.  Is that a scenario we
need to worry about?

The patch neglects to update extend.sgml with the new pgxs variable,
though.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services