Re: [HACKERS] DEC Alpha initdb partial fix

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> (I lost a block of mail a while back, so if this is 'old hat,',
> please let me know)
>
> Well, my eyes are about crossed, but I believe that I've found
> PART of the problem with initdb in 6.3 on the DEC Alpha.  (I'm
> running Digital Unix 3.2, rather than 4.0, but I don't think that
> makes a difference.)  This does NOT fix the problem, but I
> believe that it moves us closer.  I'm hoping that this will
> trigger somebody else to know where else to look.
>
> In backend/utils/adt/oid.c, the routine oid8in() makes the
> assumption that an Oid is the same size as a pointer.  Actually,
> I'm not quite sure why this code was written this way at all.  It
> declares an array of pointers to Oids, and then fills in the
> pointers with the actual Oids.  Sorry I can't provide a true
> diff output at this time - the code is too hacked up.  Simply
> replacing '*result' with 'result' throughout the routine, except
> on the declaration, which should be

Try the oid.c from 6.2.1.  I see no changes I can see in that code from
6.2.1 -> 6.3, and we are told 6.2.1 worked for Alpha.  I believe this is
our last big item in 6.3 open issues.

Is the lack of index use in certain cases still true for some people?  I
remember two people complaining about it.

--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)