Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-16 Thread Robert Creager
On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: ... installation paths. About the only good thing to be said about it is that these characters are so troublesome that Unix users are unlikely to use them in directory names anyway. So I'm guessing you don't want this path

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-16 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Creager rob...@logicalchaos.org writes: On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: installation paths. About the only good thing to be said about it is that these characters are so troublesome that Unix users are unlikely to use them in directory names anyway. So

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Robert Creager rob...@logicalchaos.org wrote: On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: ... installation paths.  About the only good thing to be said about it is that these characters are so troublesome that Unix users are unlikely to

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-15 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 00:01, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: On 06/14/2011 05:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net  writes: On 06/13/2011 08:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I looked into $SUBJECT.  There appear to be two distinct issues: ... I think we can be a

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tis, 2011-06-14 at 18:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 06/14/2011 05:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I've committed patches that fix these issues on my own OS X machine, Well, OSX is just using our usual *nix paraphernalia, so if it's broken won't all

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: As a secondary point, we have so far used mostly single quotes for quoting the installation directories, in case someone wants to try other funny characters besides spaces. The most recent patch uses double quotes. I'm not sure what degree of support

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-15 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: As a secondary point, we have so far used mostly single quotes for quoting the installation directories, in case someone wants to try other funny characters besides spaces. The most recent patch uses double quotes. I'm not sure what degree

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-14 Thread Robert Creager
On Jun 13, 2011, at 6:05 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I looked into $SUBJECT. There appear to be two distinct issues: 1. On colugos (OS X with LLVM), the ... However, because when using gcc that only results in a warning, we didn't back-patch it. Now it appears that it's an

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-14 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 06/13/2011 08:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I looked into $SUBJECT. There appear to be two distinct issues: ... I think we can be a bit more liberal about build patches than things that can affect the runtime behaviour. So +1 for fixing both of

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-14 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 06/14/2011 05:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes: On 06/13/2011 08:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I looked into $SUBJECT. There appear to be two distinct issues: ... I think we can be a bit more liberal about build patches than things that can affect the runtime

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-14 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes: On 06/14/2011 05:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I've committed patches that fix these issues on my own OS X machine, Well, OSX is just using our usual *nix paraphernalia, so if it's broken won't all such platforms probably be broken too? Yes, certainly.

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-14 Thread Robert Creager
On Jun 14, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I've committed patches that fix these issues on my own OS X machine, though it remains to be seen whether polecat and colugos will like them. It turns out that whatever setup Robert has got with '/Volumes/High Usage/' is really

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-14 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 06/14/2011 06:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net writes: On 06/14/2011 05:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I've committed patches that fix these issues on my own OS X machine, Well, OSX is just using our usual *nix paraphernalia, so if it's broken won't all such platforms

[HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-13 Thread Tom Lane
I looked into $SUBJECT. There appear to be two distinct issues: 1. On colugos (OS X with LLVM), the plperl link step is spitting up because Apple's ExtUtils::Embed puts some -arch switches into perl_embed_ldflags. We found out about that some time ago, and fixed it for 9.0 and up here:

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-13 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 06/13/2011 08:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: I looked into $SUBJECT. There appear to be two distinct issues: 1. On colugos (OS X with LLVM), the plperl link step is spitting up because Apple's ExtUtils::Embed puts some -arch switches into perl_embed_ldflags. We found out about that some time

Re: [HACKERS] Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches

2011-06-13 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net wrote: I think we can be a bit more liberal about build patches than things that can affect the runtime behaviour. I agree. I wouldn't go nuts with it, but I don't see any reason to worry about fixing this case. -- Robert