Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:28:11PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >
> > >All the logs for the most recent run against HEAD are now at
> >
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 02:28:11PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> >All the logs for the most recent run against HEAD are now at
> >http://stats.distributed.net/~buildfarm/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> A quick look shows that when you use --with-libraries=/foo/bar the
> gene
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
All the logs for the most recent run against HEAD are now at
http://stats.distributed.net/~buildfarm/
A quick look shows that when you use --with-libraries=/foo/bar the
generated link line for libraries says
-L/foo/bar -lpq
and it should probably be the other w
All the logs for the most recent run against HEAD are now at
http://stats.distributed.net/~buildfarm/
On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 08:30:44AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> you should have a file /HEAD/lastrun-logs/make.log that shows
> the link steps for the libraries. Can you either put
Jim,
you should have a file /HEAD/lastrun-logs/make.log that shows
the link steps for the libraries. Can you either put that file somewhere
we can look at it or extract the relevant lines and post in a reply?
thanks
andrew
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
I have no clue why the mailling list is eatin
I have no clue why the mailling list is eating my original messages,
unless it's because I attached a diff to them... in any case, applying
http://stats.distributed.net/~buildfarm/patch provides a listing of what
all the binaries and libraries in a buildfarm install are linking
against. I couldn't
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 03:44:41PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:10:47PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> >
> >
> >>http://stats.distributed.net/~buildfarm/libcheck.log. Note that Tom's
> >>theory is correct: psql is linking against the build
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:10:47PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
http://stats.distributed.net/~buildfarm/libcheck.log. Note that Tom's
theory is correct: psql is linking against the buildfarm libpq while
dblink is linking against the system one.
BTW, after looking t
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:10:47PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> http://stats.distributed.net/~buildfarm/libcheck.log. Note that Tom's
> theory is correct: psql is linking against the buildfarm libpq while
> dblink is linking against the system one.
BTW, after looking through that logfile, it appea
On Jun 22, 2005, at 12:52, Tom Lane wrote:
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is there a way to confirm which libpq.so psql and/or dblink.so has
linked to? Are there any other tests I could run to shed some
light on
this?
On Linux you use "ldd" to find out what the linker will do
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 08:49:12PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> I think most people would expect that if they don't specify a port, they
> would be talking to the same postmaster that they are running under on
> whatever port it is using, not some compiled in default. So your
> proposal makes perf
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there a way to confirm which libpq.so psql and/or dblink.so has
> linked to? Are there any other tests I could run to shed some light on
> this?
On Linux you use "ldd" to find out what the linker will do with
dependencies of an executable or shared l
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 11:45:09AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane said:
> >> There are several buildfarm machines failing like this. I think a
> >> possible solution is for the postmaster to do putenv("PGPORT=nnn") so
> >> that libpq instances ru
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane said:
>> There are several buildfarm machines failing like this. I think a
>> possible solution is for the postmaster to do putenv("PGPORT=nnn") so
>> that libpq instances running in postmaster children will default to the
>> local installati
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If this diagnosis were correct, wouldn't every buildfarm member be failing
> at the ContribCheck stage (if they get that far)?
I am way too tired right now to run down the details, but there is a
series of possibilities for the port libpq will try to
Tom Lane said:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It appears that the dblink regression test defaults to port 5432. I've
>> been trying to get platypus to compile clean on HEAD and 8_0 and it's
>> been failing on dblink.
>
> There are several buildfarm machines failing like this. I th
Tom Lane wrote:
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It appears that the dblink regression test defaults to port 5432. I've
been trying to get platypus to compile clean on HEAD and 8_0 and it's
been failing on dblink.
There are several buildfarm machines failing like this. I think a
p
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears that the dblink regression test defaults to port 5432. I've
> been trying to get platypus to compile clean on HEAD and 8_0 and it's
> been failing on dblink.
There are several buildfarm machines failing like this. I think a
possible solution
18 matches
Mail list logo
