Jeremy Drake writes:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> What would we investigate except a compiler bug?
> To me, simply chalking it up to some uncharacterized compiler bug is still
> quite a bit of black magic.
If there were some reason to believe either that it wasn't a compiler
bug
Jeremy Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Jeremy Drake wrote:
> > > I think tomorrow I'll try to get the 9.0 compiler set up on a clean VM,
> > > and if the issue duplicates there, I can see about setting up SSH access
> > > if anyone is still interested in investigating
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jeremy Drake wrote:
> > I think tomorrow I'll try to get the 9.0 compiler set up on a clean VM,
> > and if the issue duplicates there, I can see about setting up SSH access
> > if anyone is still interested in investigating this further.
>
> What would we
Jeremy Drake wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > What I would suggest is to see whether a more recent x86 version shows
> > the problem or not. If not, let's just write it off as an already-fixed
> > compiler bug.
>
> I have installed the most recent version in the home directory
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
> What I would suggest is to see whether a more recent x86 version shows
> the problem or not. If not, let's just write it off as an already-fixed
> compiler bug.
I have installed the most recent version in the home directory of a
purpose-made user on that mac
Jeremy Drake writes:
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Right now I have a feeling that this is a compiler bug.
> That's my feeling, also.
>> Don't know
>> whether you have the interest/energy to try to reduce it to a reportable
>> test case.
> If you mean reporting it to the compiler ven
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeremy Drake writes:
> > I didn't see any changes that looked like they affected
> > CurrentMemoryContext, but I attached the compressed context diff in case
> > you want to look at it.
>
> Right now I have a feeling that this is a compiler bug.
That's my fe
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I would have gone the other way on that one, if possible. Seems like
>> xlog.h ought to be the lower-level file.
> Agreed. Let me work on that.
Uh, I just did it. Painful. It would have been a lot easier before
the pgrminclude run, because that bake
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> You seem to have entirely missed the point of Alvaro's remark, which is
> >> that you've got xlog.h including walsender.h (still) as well as
> >> walsender.h including xlog.h. That's broken.
>
> > Oh, OK, done. xlog.h removed from
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> You seem to have entirely missed the point of Alvaro's remark, which is
>> that you've got xlog.h including walsender.h (still) as well as
>> walsender.h including xlog.h. That's broken.
> Oh, OK, done. xlog.h removed from walsender.h and tested.
I wo
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Hmm, so you included walsender.h into xlog.h? That seems a bit funny
> >> considering that walsender.h already includes xlog.h. It seems the
> >> reason for this is only the AllowCascadeReplication() definition. Maybe
> >> t
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Hmm, so you included walsender.h into xlog.h? That seems a bit funny
>> considering that walsender.h already includes xlog.h. It seems the
>> reason for this is only the AllowCascadeReplication() definition. Maybe
>> that should go elsewhere inst
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie sep 02 12:20:50 -0300 2011:
>
> > Wow, that is interesting. So the problem is the inclusion of
> > replication/walsender.h in xlog.h. Hard to see how that could cause the
> > cube regression tests to fail, but of course, it is.
13 matches
Mail list logo
