Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Dienstag, 26. Juni 2007 16:12 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> PG_CONFIG := pg_config
>> PGXS := $(shell $(PG_CONFIG) --pgxs)
>> include $(PGXS)
>>
>> Any objections?
> Yes. I think that solution is wrong. It merely creates other possibilities
> to use mismatching combinations.
Well, it's certainly *possible* to screw it up, but the idea is that the
"obvious" way of putting in a path will work; whereas before the obvious
way did not work. So I think it's a step forward.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
