On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 03:49:53PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Isn't that what bc19b7836215b1a847524041a1bd138d7bb5cbef did?
Oops, sorry. Missed this one.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2018-04-30 07:43:46 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 02:32:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Ugh. I'd tried the core code but not contrib. Will look.
>
> The thread has stalled a bit.
Huh? It's a weekend. The last message was yesterday afternoon.
> What are the other i
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 02:32:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ugh. I'd tried the core code but not contrib. Will look.
The thread has stalled a bit. What are the other issues you were
seeing? Are those related to --with-llvm? On my side, if I just apply
something like the attached I am able to
Andres Freund writes:
> On April 28, 2018 11:05:15 AM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Close inspection of the
>> "make install" output revealed a few other issues, which I hope
>> I fixed rather than making things worse.
> Broke the llvm enabled part of the bf. Will have a look once I'm home (1.5h),
>
On April 28, 2018 11:05:15 AM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
>Michael Paquier writes:
>> JIT is introducing the installation of LLVM bitcode modules, and any
>> installation done results in the following comment in output, which
>> repeats basically for all the extensions installed:
>> # Then install fil
Michael Paquier writes:
> JIT is introducing the installation of LLVM bitcode modules, and any
> installation done results in the following comment in output, which
> repeats basically for all the extensions installed:
> # Then install files
> #
> # The many INSTALL_DATA invocations aren't particu
