| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 17:19:01 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10801180919n483c5de9pb55924c287860d4a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-patches |
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.
Right, I realise it's a seperate executable, but doesn't configure
rely on it anyway? Meaning if someones system has a uname that tells
configure it's a PPC when it's actually an Intel, the resulting binary
is likely to go bang anyway, assuming it even builds.
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...
Anyway, Peter's suggestion seems much tidier.
/D
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-18 17:24:04 | Re: Forgot to dump old data before re-installing machine |
| Previous Message | Glyn Astill | 2008-01-18 17:17:10 | Stupid question about WAL archiving |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-18 17:24:04 | Re: Forgot to dump old data before re-installing machine |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-18 17:12:59 | Re: Forgot to dump old data before re-installing machine |