On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 8:48 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 8:36 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2022-02-17 13:34:08 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > %define needs to include HAVE_LIBZSTD, HAVE_ZSTD_H and USE_ZSTD, so > > > this version fails the sanity check between pg_config.h.in and the > > > MSVC scripts checking that all flags exist. > > > > Do we really need all three defines? How about using AC_CHECK_HEADER() > > instead > > of AC_CHECK_HEADERS()? That wouldn't define HAVE_ZSTD_H. Cases where we > > error > > out if a header isn't found make it a bit pointless to then still define > > HAVE_*_H. Plenty other cases in configure.ac just use AC_CHECK_HEADER. > > I have to admit to being somewhat confused by the apparent lack of > consistency in the way we do configure checks. The ZSTD check we added > here is just based on the LZ4 check just above it, which was the > result of my commit of Dilip's patch to add LZ4 TOAST compression. So > if we want to do something different we should change them both. But > that just begs the question of why the LZ4 support looks the way it > does, and to be honest I don't recall. The zlib and XSLT formulas just > above are much simpler, but for some reason what we're doing here > seems to be based on the more-complex formula we use for XML support > instead of either of those. > > But having said that, the proposed patch adds no new call to > AC_CHECK_HEADER(), and does add a new call to AC_CHECK_HEADERS(), so I > don't understand the specifics of your complaint here.
Oh wait ... you want it the other way. Yeah, that seems harmless to change. I wonder how many others there are that could be changed similarly... -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
