| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Complier warnings on mingw gcc 4.5.0 |
| Date: | 2010-12-14 21:17:32 |
| Message-ID: | 4D07DEEC.3060003@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/14/2010 12:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> This seems quite odd now that I look at it. The packet contents imply
> that libpq saw PGOPTIONS="-c log_min_messages=warning" and no other
> environment variables that would cause it to append stuff to the
> connection request. Which is not at all how pg_regress ought to behave,
> even assuming that the buildfarm script sets up PGOPTIONS that way.
> I'd expect to see settings for timezone, datestyle, and intervalstyle
> in there. What was the client here exactly?
Maybe I didn't explain this properly. The trace was not from pg_regress.
It was from a connection from a standard Linux psql client.
> Another line of attack is that we know from the response packet that the
> failure is being reported at guc.c:4794. It would be really useful to
> know what the call stack is there. Could you change that elog to an
> elog(PANIC) and get a stack trace from the ensuing core dump?
>
>
I can try that. Not sure how easy that is on Windows.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-12-14 21:24:25 | Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-14 21:06:40 | unlogged tables vs. GIST |