| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, girgen(at)FreeBSD(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: More buildfarm stuff |
| Date: | 2005-07-19 19:47:48 |
| Message-ID: | 8940.1121802468@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 03:11:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> None of those patches are necessary; if they were, we'd be seeing the
>> failures at the build stage, not at runtime.
> Anyone have any ideas on why octopus is failing then?
Well, the original report said that we needed to link the backend with
libc_r instead of libc to make libpython happy. If there's not a
separate "libpthread" on your machine then that may well be the case.
The question then is whether we are prepared to do that (and risk
unknown consequences in performance and stability) to support plpython.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-07-19 19:53:26 | Re: More buildfarm stuff |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-07-19 19:42:26 | Re: Buildfarm issues on specific machines |