Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28214.1131814980@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:18:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> How so? All we care about is being able to (1) compare for equality, >> and (2) print out something useful in error messages. I claim that >> PG_VERSION does #1 equally well and #2 better. > I was thinking of compile time. The compiler can compare > CATALOG_VERSION in #if statements, but it can't compare strings. We aren't asking the compiler to compare anything, though. I'm imagining just that the PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1 macro will insert the value into the Pg_finfo_record struct, and the comparison will happen at run time in dfmgr.c. > Another way that doesn't require code changes would be to make a dummy symbol > containing the version and referring to it in pg_finfo. Then you'd get > error messages like: Couldn't find symbol 'PG_version_verify_8_1'. i.e. > let the dynamic linker do the work. That would be attractive if we could get it to happen without the assumption that the library uses PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1 ... but if it still needs that assumption, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement. It's not always easy for people to see dynamic-linker error messages, so I'd rather the message were issued under our control when possible. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: