Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>> Is there any objection to applying this to 8.4?
>>
>> Yes. I don't think we should bother with a one-operating-system patch
>> for an OS version that was obsolete ten years ago. (Even if I am still
>> running it ;-).) If we
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Is there any objection to applying this to 8.4?
>
> Yes. I don't think we should bother with a one-operating-system patch
> for an OS version that was obsolete ten years ago. (Even if I am still
> running it ;-).) If we do this, the next thing will b
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Is there any objection to applying this to 8.4?
Yes. I don't think we should bother with a one-operating-system patch
for an OS version that was obsolete ten years ago. (Even if I am still
running it ;-).) If we do this, the next thing will be trying to work
around what
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > On 1/14/09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > OK, patch attached and applied to CVS HEAD. The nsl (not 'nls') library
> > > check was removed in Postgres 8.2 here:
> >
> > As long as you are looking at this, can you take a peek at this patch?
> > http:/
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Also the
calling of the function with all null pointers seems dangerous,
Its only trying to compile it, AC_TRY_COMPILE, not execute it. I don't
"think?" the NULL pointers could ever raise havoc.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
--
S
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On 1/14/09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > OK, patch attached and applied to CVS HEAD. The nsl (not 'nls') library
> > check was removed in Postgres 8.2 here:
>
> As long as you are looking at this, can you take a peek at this patch?
> http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20081
On 1/14/09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, patch attached and applied to CVS HEAD. The nsl (not 'nls') library
> check was removed in Postgres 8.2 here:
As long as you are looking at this, can you take a peek at this patch?
http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20081116.053100.15b5801d.fi.html
We ha
Andrew Chernow wrote:
>
> >>>
> >> Forgot to mention, there is an easy fix:
> >>
> >> ~]# LDFLAGS="-lnsl" ./configure --enable-thread-safety
> >
> > But I assume that only works if I use gethostbyname_r(), right?
>
> No, works for gethostbyname as well. They are all in libnsl.
>
> > But we do c
AC_SEARCH_LIBS(gethostbyname_r, c nsl)
Just don't put "c" in there. You usually don't want an explicit -lc to
appear in your link commands.
Correct. Copied that from an internal project, which I should fix.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
--
Sent via p
Andrew Chernow wrote:
The problem with the current check is its only an AC_CHECK_FUNCS. We
need an AC_SEARCH_LIBS first so the proper -llibrary is appended to
LIBS, which is used by AC_CHECK_FUNCS.
AC_SEARCH_LIBS(gethostbyname_r, c nsl)
Just don't put "c" in there. You usually don't want a
Forgot to mention, there is an easy fix:
~]# LDFLAGS="-lnsl" ./configure --enable-thread-safety
But I assume that only works if I use gethostbyname_r(), right?
No, works for gethostbyname as well. They are all in libnsl.
But we do check for that in thread_test.c.
The problem with
Andrew Chernow wrote:
> Andrew Chernow wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
> >> threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, its old. Unfortunately for us, we still have to support it.
> >
> > To set the
Andrew Chernow wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
> > threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
> >
>
> Yeah, its old. Unfortunately for us, we still have to support it.
>
> To set the record straight, the issue is not t
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
Yeah, its old. Unfortunately for us, we still have to support it.
To set the record straight, the issue is not threads. Threads w
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
Yeah, its old. Unfortunately for us, we still have to support it.
To set the record straight, the issue is not threads. Threads work fine
on 2.5.1. Th
2009/1/12 Bruce Momjian :
>
> I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
> threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
>
> ---
>
> Andrew Chernow wrote:
>> for anyone interested
>>
>> Solaris
I supposed Solaris 2.5.1 (release 1996) is just too old to add
threading, and this code has been unchanged for years.
---
Andrew Chernow wrote:
> for anyone interested
>
> Solaris 2.5.1 with --enable-thread-safety
>
>
for anyone interested
Solaris 2.5.1 with --enable-thread-safety
configure:25848: gcc -o conftest -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels
-fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -pthreads -pthreads -D_REENTRANT
-D_THREAD_SAFE -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SE
18 matches
Mail list logo
