On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:06:15 EST, the world broke into rejoicing as Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Why use awk for this at all ? and not: > > echo "\\set ECHO all" > > I think Bruce is worried about portability; some versions of echo might > do something weird with the backslash. OTOH, it's not obvious to me > that awk is better on that score. Bruce?
The problem is that the regress script isn't pointing to the version of awk that was picked up in the autoconf phase. (More detailed comments forwarded directly :-).) The "real deal" on what happens on Solaris is thus, from the awk FAQ, where Patrick McPhee writes: > SunOS includes three versions of awk. /usr/bin/awk is the old > (pre-1989) version. /usr/bin/nawk is the new awk which appeared in > 1989, and /usr/xpg4/bin/awk is supposed to conform to the single unix > specification. No one knows why Sun continues to ship old awk. I would be /very/ inclined to trust Patrick's wisdom on this. So long as we fix up the regression script to grab the "nawk" that we expect to work, that's probably nicer than figuring out which echo parameters are needed... -- (concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org") http://cbbrowne.com/info/wp.html The first cup of coffee recapitulates phylogeny. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
