"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 18/01/2008, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Zero cost and also zero benefit. The missing piece of information here
>> was that the executable being used was running under PPC emulation, and
>> I'll bet money that there would have been nothing in either uname or
>> pg_config output that would have told us that.
> I'd wager there would be a fairly good chance that a PPC-only binary
> on a Mac would most likely have been built on a PPC, and thus mention
> that in the uname output at build time. I can't imagine many folks are
> building PPC-only binaries on Intels.
uname is a separate executable. If you do system("uname") you'll get
results that reflect how uname was built, not how Postgres was built.
I think this is likely to lead to more confusion, not less --- if we'd
had such output in the directory, it might have led us to disregard
the clear evidence of the wrong-endian version number, and fruitlessly
bark up some other tree instead.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
