On 5/11/21 10:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 5/10/21 12:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I don't think this is good practice; it implies that any >>> accidental corruption of the commentary would be carried >>> forward. I think we should be extracting the commentary >>> from Gen_dummy_probes.sed. >> I don't know how likely accidental corruption is, but OK, let's not make >> the next generation dependent on the current generation of the file. The >> simplest way around that seems to me to cache the perl prolog, as in the >> attached patch Is that more to your liking? I also adjusted it so we >> pick up the first line of code from s2p rather than from the prolog, >> which is now just comments and the #! line. > Works for me. One other thought --- do we care whether this works > in a VPATH build, and if so does it? The $< and $@ references should > be OK, but I'm betting you need $(srcdir)/Gen_dummy_probes.pl.prolog > or the like. > >
Why would we? It's only used in Windows builds, and there's no VPATH there (sadly). In fact, building the file isn't part of any standard build procedure. I think this is probably in the same boat as the SSL certs we make in src/test/ssl - I don't think those recipes are meant for use in VPATH builds either. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
