From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Pete St(dot) Onge" <pete(at)economics(dot)utoronto(dot)ca>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Buildfarm issues on specific machines |
Date: | 2005-07-17 15:02:33 |
Message-ID: | 27788.1121612553@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The short answer is that you should install flex 2.5.4, or else forget
>> about testing the 7.2 branch. I don't think anyone will be very
>> interested in making 7.2 work with flex 2.5.31.
> Actually there are problems in the 7.3 branch as well in the cube,
> tsearch, and seg modules. Here are some patches for the 7.2 version check
> and 7.2 and 7.3 tsearch code. I'll work on getting cube and seg up to
> speed as well if people agree we want these fixes.
The cube and seg fixes were pretty invasive, and I have a feeling that
there were other changes needed in all the .l files to play nice with
2.5.31 (though a quick troll of the CVS logs failed to show any other
patches specifically marked that way). My opinion is that we should
just say "flex 2.5.31 is unsupported before PG 7.4" --- and possibly fix
the configure tests to reject it in 7.3 too.
This is a considerably bigger issue for the buildfarm than it would be
for ordinary users of our distribution, since in the distro it's only
the contrib modules that you actually need to run through your local
flex. On a buildfarm machine you had better be running the
project-approved versions of bison and flex. At this writing, the
approved version of flex is still 2.5.4, even for CVS tip.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-07-17 15:02:40 | Re: Buildfarm issues on specific machines |
Previous Message | Hiroki Kataoka | 2005-07-17 14:39:26 | Re: Changes improve the performance of INSERT and UPDATE |