Re: [GENERAL] pg9 beta1, make check fails

2010-05-04 Thread Andy Colson
On 5/4/2010 9:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Andy Colson writes: On 5/3/2010 9:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I'm not immediately seeing a simple way to improve this. How about building a statically linked psql in 'make check', just for pg_regress to use? [ shrug... ] That sort of defeats the purpose of

Re: [GENERAL] pg9 beta1, make check fails

2010-05-04 Thread Tom Lane
Andy Colson writes: > On 5/3/2010 9:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm not immediately seeing a simple way to improve this. > How about building a statically linked psql in 'make check', just for > pg_regress to use? [ shrug... ] That sort of defeats the purpose of testing the binaries we are inten

Re: [GENERAL] pg9 beta1, make check fails

2010-05-04 Thread Andy Colson
On 5/3/2010 9:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I wrote: I'd have thought that pg_regress would have a more obvious failure if it was trying to use an old libpq.so version though --- it should have looked similar to what you referenced for pg_dump, for instance. I think I see what's going on here. pg_re

Re: [GENERAL] pg9 beta1, make check fails

2010-05-03 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > I'd have thought that pg_regress would have a more obvious failure if it > was trying to use an old libpq.so version though --- it should have > looked similar to what you referenced for pg_dump, for instance. I think I see what's going on here. pg_regress itself doesn't link to libpq

Re: [GENERAL] pg9 beta1, make check fails

2010-05-03 Thread Andy Colson
On 5/3/2010 1:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andy Colson writes: Ok, not sure what order its supposed to be run in, but I had done: make make check which fails. But if I do: make make install make check it works and passes. That looks like a shared-library problem --- did the "make ins

Re: [GENERAL] pg9 beta1, make check fails

2010-05-03 Thread Tom Lane
Andy Colson writes: > Ok, not sure what order its supposed to be run in, but I had done: > make > make check > which fails. > But if I do: > make > make install > make check > it works and passes. That looks like a shared-library problem --- did the "make install" overwrite an older version

Re: [GENERAL] pg9 beta1, make check fails

2010-05-03 Thread Andy Colson
On 5/3/2010 12:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andy Colson writes: $make check ... snip lots of output... ./pg_regress --inputdir=. --dlpath=. --multibyte=SQL_ASCII --temp-install=./tmp_check --top-builddir=../../.. --schedule=./parallel_schedule == removing existing temp installation===

Re: [GENERAL] pg9 beta1, make check fails

2010-05-03 Thread Andy Colson
On 5/3/2010 12:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andy Colson writes: $make check ... snip lots of output... ./pg_regress --inputdir=. --dlpath=. --multibyte=SQL_ASCII --temp-install=./tmp_check --top-builddir=../../.. --schedule=./parallel_schedule == removing existing temp installation===

Re: [GENERAL] pg9 beta1, make check fails

2010-05-03 Thread Tom Lane
Andy Colson writes: > $make check > ... snip lots of output... > ./pg_regress --inputdir=. --dlpath=. --multibyte=SQL_ASCII > --temp-install=./tmp_check --top-builddir=../../.. > --schedule=./parallel_schedule > == removing existing temp installation== > =