On 2019-01-22 15:26:21 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 02:55:39PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Personally I see pgxs as something completely different than what COPT > > and PROFILE are as we are talking about two different facilities: one > > which is part of the core installation, and the other which can be > > used for extension modules, so having PG_CFLAGS, PG_CXXFLAGS and > > PG_LDFLAGS, but leaving CXXFLAGS out of COPT and PROFILE looks like > > the better long-term move in terms of pluggability. My 2c. > > It's been a couple of days since this message, and while my opinion > has not really changed, there are many other opinions. So perhaps we > could reduce the proposal to a strict minimum and find an agreement > for the options that we think are absolutely worth adding? Even if we > cannot agree on what COPT of PROFILE should do more, perhaps we could > still agree with only a portion of the flags we think are worth it?
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. Greetings, Andres Freund
