On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 03:49:53PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Isn't that what bc19b7836215b1a847524041a1bd138d7bb5cbef did?
Oops, sorry. Missed this one.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 2018-04-30 07:43:46 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 02:32:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Ugh. I'd tried the core code but not contrib. Will look.
>
> The thread has stalled a bit.
Huh? It's a weekend. The last message was yesterday afternoon.
> What are the other i
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 02:32:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ugh. I'd tried the core code but not contrib. Will look.
The thread has stalled a bit. What are the other issues you were
seeing? Are those related to --with-llvm? On my side, if I just apply
something like the attached I am able to
Andres Freund writes:
> On April 28, 2018 11:05:15 AM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Close inspection of the
>> "make install" output revealed a few other issues, which I hope
>> I fixed rather than making things worse.
> Broke the llvm enabled part of the bf. Will have a look once I'm home (1.5h),
>
On April 28, 2018 11:05:15 AM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
>Michael Paquier writes:
>> JIT is introducing the installation of LLVM bitcode modules, and any
>> installation done results in the following comment in output, which
>> repeats basically for all the extensions installed:
>> # Then install fil
Michael Paquier writes:
> JIT is introducing the installation of LLVM bitcode modules, and any
> installation done results in the following comment in output, which
> repeats basically for all the extensions installed:
> # Then install files
> #
> # The many INSTALL_DATA invocations aren't particu
Hi all,
JIT is introducing the installation of LLVM bitcode modules, and any
installation done results in the following comment in output, which
repeats basically for all the extensions installed:
# Then install files
#
# The many INSTALL_DATA invocations aren't particularly fast, it'd be
# good i
