[HACKERS] Anyone still using --enable-recode? (was Re: compile failure)

2003-07-02 Thread Tom Lane
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is recode a feature that's normally enabled? ./configure '--enable-recode' '--enable-integer-datetimes' '--enable-debug' '--with-perl' '--with-pam' '--with-openssl' '--with-gnu-ld' '--with-maxbackends=64' '--with-pgport=5432' 'CFLAGS=-O0 -g -pg

Re: [HACKERS] Anyone still using --enable-recode? (was Re: compile failure)

2003-07-02 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 01:23:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is recode a feature that's normally enabled? ./configure '--enable-recode' '--enable-integer-datetimes' '--enable-debug' '--with-perl' '--with-pam' '--with-openssl' '--with-gnu-ld'

Re: [HACKERS] Anyone still using --enable-recode? (was Re: compile failure)

2003-07-02 Thread Tom Lane
Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'll probably rewrite that code to use rangeSockAddr / SockAddr_cidr_mask instead of having it's own cidr code. Given that it's been under death sentence for awhile, I'm not sure it's worth putting that much work into ... the feature is superseded by

Re: [HACKERS] Anyone still using --enable-recode? (was Re: compile failure)

2003-07-02 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 01:52:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Kurt Roeckx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'll probably rewrite that code to use rangeSockAddr / SockAddr_cidr_mask instead of having it's own cidr code. Given that it's been under death sentence for awhile, I'm not sure it's worth