Re: Various bugs with PG7.1 8th March snapshot on Solaris 8 INTEL
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Various bugs with PG7.1 8th March snapshot on Solaris 8 INTEL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 22454.984515273@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Various bugs with PG7.1 8th March snapshot on Solaris 8 INTEL (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Various bugs with PG7.1 8th March snapshot on Solaris 8
INTEL
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> Interesting theory, but if LIBS is broken then wouldn't the backend fail >> to run at all? How'd they manage to pass the other regress tests? > Presumably the backend would print an error message along the lines of > "cannot find shared library libxyz.so" and the user would take appropriate > configuration steps. However, this doesn't really help when running > configure because no user actually reads every 'checking...' line and > tries to challenge the result by examining config.log. Oh, I see: you posit that the user fixed the shlib configuration problem after discovering the backend wouldn't run, but did not then go back and re-run configure. Yes, that makes sense. Justin, are the INT64 flags in your config.h wrong? > Yet another reason to avoid AC_TRY_RUN. The tests that we have to see whether 64-bit arithmetic actually works are probably just unnecessary paranoia. However, the tests to see whether snprintf does the right thing, and with what format flags, still seem necessary; and I see no way to handle those without a runtime check. Maybe the AC_TRY_RUN tests could be moved up to before we start probing for libraries? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: