| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |
| Date: | 2014-02-05 05:52:48 |
| Message-ID: | 7336.1391579568@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 02/05/2014 06:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I had been okay with the manual PGDLLIMPORT-sprinkling approach
>> (not happy with it, of course, but prepared to tolerate it) as long
>> as I believed the buildfarm would reliably tell us of the need for
>> it. That assumption has now been conclusively disproven, though.
> I'm kind of horrified that the dynamic linker doesn't throw its toys
> when it sees this.
Indeed :-(.
The truly strange part of this is that it seems that the one Windows
buildfarm member that's telling the truth (or most nearly so, anyway)
is narwhal, which appears to have the oldest and cruftiest toolchain
of the lot. I'd really like to come out the other end of this
investigation with a clear understanding of why the newer toolchains
are failing to report a link problem, and yet not building working
executables.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-02-05 05:54:07 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
| Previous Message | James Sewell | 2014-02-05 05:00:12 | PostgreSQL Failback without rebuild |