enman; PostgreSQL Hackers List
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyhow, to address the problem I've removed struct mount from
> userland visibility in both FreeBSD 5.x (current) and FreeBSD 4.x
>
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 07:14] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Anyhow, to address the problem I've removed struct mount from
> > userland visibility in both FreeBSD 5.x (current) and FreeBSD 4.x
> > (stable).
>
> That might fix things on your box, but we c
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyhow, to address the problem I've removed struct mount from
> userland visibility in both FreeBSD 5.x (current) and FreeBSD 4.x
> (stable).
That might fix things on your box, but we can hardly rely on it as an
answer for everyone running FreeBSD :-
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001205 04:00]:
> * Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 20:44] wrote:
> > * Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 22:31]:
> > > Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > The last batch of commits break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
> > > > /usr/inclu
* Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 20:44] wrote:
> * Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 22:31]:
> > Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The last batch of commits break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
> > > /usr/include/machine/lock.h:148: conflicting types for `s_lock'
> > > ../..
* Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001129 19:54]:
> * Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 23:03]:
> > Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> We've called that routine s_lock for a *long* time, so it seems
> > >> like there must be some factor involved that I don't see just yet...
>
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 23:03]:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> We've called that routine s_lock for a *long* time, so it seems
> >> like there must be some factor involved that I don't see just yet...
>
> > Didn't your commit message say something about the TAS a
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 22:55]:
> * Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 20:52] wrote:
> > My offer stands for you as well, if you'd like an account
> > on this P-III 600E, you are welcome to one...
>
> I just remebered my laptop in the other room, it's a pretty recen
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 23:03]:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> We've called that routine s_lock for a *long* time, so it seems
> >> like there must be some factor involved that I don't see just yet...
>
> > Didn't your commit message say something about the TAS a
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We've called that routine s_lock for a *long* time, so it seems
>> like there must be some factor involved that I don't see just yet...
> Didn't your commit message say something about the TAS and NON-TAS
> paths being the same now?
Yeah, but don't
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 22:55]:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Here is the "Current" /usr/include/machine/lock.h:
> >> ...
> >> void s_lock __P((struct simplelock *));
> >> ...
>
> Ick. Seems like the relevant question is not so much "why
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Here is the "Current" /usr/include/machine/lock.h:
>> ...
>> void s_lock __P((struct simplelock *));
>> ...
Ick. Seems like the relevant question is not so much "why did it break"
as "how did it ever manage to work"?
I have no probl
* Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 20:52] wrote:
> My offer stands for you as well, if you'd like an account
> on this P-III 600E, you are welcome to one...
I just remebered my laptop in the other room, it's a pretty recent 4.2.
I'll give it shot.
Yes, it's possible to forget about a
My offer stands for you as well, if you'd like an account
on this P-III 600E, you are welcome to one...
LER
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 22:46]:
> * Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 20:44] wrote:
> > * Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 22:31]:
> > > Larry Rosenman <
* Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 20:44] wrote:
> * Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 22:31]:
> > Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The last batch of commits break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
> > > /usr/include/machine/lock.h:148: conflicting types for `s_lock'
> > > ../..
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 22:31]:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The last batch of commits break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
> > /usr/include/machine/lock.h:148: conflicting types for `s_lock'
> > ../../../src/include/storage/s_lock.h:402: previous declaration of `s_lock
* Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 22:33]:
> * Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 22:31]:
> > Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The last batch of commits break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
> > > /usr/include/machine/lock.h:148: conflicting types for `s_lock'
> > > ../../../sr
* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001128 22:31]:
> Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The last batch of commits break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
> > /usr/include/machine/lock.h:148: conflicting types for `s_lock'
> > ../../../src/include/storage/s_lock.h:402: previous declaration of `s_lock
Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The last batch of commits break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE.
> /usr/include/machine/lock.h:148: conflicting types for `s_lock'
> ../../../src/include/storage/s_lock.h:402: previous declaration of `s_lock'
That's odd. s_lock has been declared the same way r
19 matches
Mail list logo
