Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Giles Lean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > utimes("/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432", (const struct timeval *) 0);
>
> Hm, do you think that's portable?
Hm ... yes, actually I do. I use it on HP-UX, and testing indi
[ Where *did* that Reply-To: line come from -- it's broken ...
repl: bad addresses:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; -- extraneous semi-colon
]
> Stopping and starting the postmaster daemon clears up this problem,
> but this problem creeps up about 2 times a week, and is a major
> annoyance.
Either
Peter Eisentraut wrote
> This should be detected by configure. E.g., on my system I get
>
> | checking for readline... yes (-lreadline -ltermcap)
>
> (-lreadline and -ledit are equivalent for computational purposes).
On NetBSD-1.4.2 is that the link test works with -ledit, and indeed
psql bu
Hi,
Today I built postgresql-7.1beta6 on NetBSD-1.4.2/i386, which uses
a.out binary format. (NetBSD 1.5/i386 uses ELF.)
I found that psql needs to be linked with -ltermcap or else psql will
fail with a runtime error when used interactively:
$ psql ...
Welcome to psql, the PostgreSQL interacti
Hi,
PostgreSQL 7.1beta6 built on NetBSD-1.5/i386 fails the polygon test in
'make check'. The following change to resultmap makes all tests
(other than random :-) pass on this platform.
I don't know if this change is appropriate for all NetBSD platforms; I
have a couple of variants of hardware a
[ I sent a similar message with less information to -bugs earlier, and
it got held for moderation. The moderator might like to kill that
one ... ]
Hi,
PostgreSQL 7.1beta6 built on NetBSD-1.5/i386 fails the polygon test in
'make check'. The following change to resultmap makes all tests
(oth
[ Slightly edited take #2: I wasn't subscribed (again :-() to the
-bugs list. Moderator -- you can kill any postings of mine in the
queue, if you care to. :-]
Hi,
Today I built postgresql-7.1beta6 on NetBSD-1.4.2/i386, which uses
a.out binary format. (NetBSD 1.5/i386 uses ELF.)
I found th
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 02:57:56 +0200 (CEST) Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I think that's pretty safe. Shorter strings are always "less than" longer
> ones.
Nope: many-to-one collation elements break this too.
Regards,
Giles
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 22:22:06 -0400 Tom Lane wrote:
> Since '\341' and '\342' are two different accented forms of 'a'
> (if I'm looking at the right character set), this is perhaps not so
> improbable as all that. Evidently the collation rule is that different
> accent forms sort the same unles
