Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wNBw9-000djc-2K for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 May 2026 15:55:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wNBw8-009ioZ-0f for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 May 2026 15:55:52 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wNBw7-009ioR-2z for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 May 2026 15:55:52 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wNBw2-00000000QLx-0Pim for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 May 2026 15:55:51 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 64DFths7475062; Wed, 13 May 2026 11:55:43 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: egrep is obsolescent In-reply-to: <45b40fd1-1865-44e4-9030-123c52aefda3@eisentraut.org> References: <473272.1778685870@sss.pgh.pa.us> <45b40fd1-1865-44e4-9030-123c52aefda3@eisentraut.org> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Wed, 13 May 2026 17:32:28 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <475060.1778687743.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 11:55:43 -0400 Message-ID: <475061.1778687743@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 13.05.26 17:24, Tom Lane wrote: >> I did not touch the two usages in port/aix/mkldexport.sh, though. >> I'm not sure what the standardization situation is in AIX, and >> this warning doesn't seem like something they'd do anyway. > It appears that those invocations don't actually need the "e" part of > egrep, so they could just be grep? Oh, good point. I'll make it so, just for cleanliness. regards, tom lane