From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Stefan Schwarzer" <stefan(dot)schwarzer(at)grid(dot)unep(dot)ch>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Martijn van Oosterhout" <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Forgot to dump old data before re-installing machine |
Date: | 2008-01-18 17:24:04 |
Message-ID: | 10331.1200677044@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-patches |
"Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> On 18/01/2008, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> uname is a separate executable. If you do system("uname") you'll get
>> results that reflect how uname was built, not how Postgres was built.
> My suggestion was that we take the output of uname at configure/build
> time and bung it in a macro, not do anything with system() at
> runtime...
Ah. That would work better than what I thought you were suggesting, but
I still don't trust it a whole lot --- there's the problem of "universal
binaries" (PPC & PPC64 & Intel) for instance, which I believe some
people have managed to build Postgres as.
> Anyway, Peter's suggestion seems much tidier.
Agreed. Also we could have it today if we base it off inspection of
pg_control_version.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-01-18 17:27:09 | Re: [OT] RAID controllers blocking one another? |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2008-01-18 17:19:01 | Re: Forgot to dump old data before re-installing machine |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-18 17:55:34 | Re: Forgot to dump old data before re-installing machine |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2008-01-18 17:19:01 | Re: Forgot to dump old data before re-installing machine |