From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL general list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re : Solaris Performance - Profiling (Solved) |
Date: | 2002-04-03 16:35:30 |
Message-ID: | 9815.1017851730@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:23:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But I can't see any reasonable way for configure to decide automatically
>> whether we should replace the system qsort. I think we'd have to put
>> a USE_PRIVATE_QSORT symbol definition into src/template/solaris.
> Would it be possible instead to make it a --configure option, or just
> to add a note to the Solaris FAQ about adding an option to CFLAGS?
I think the default should be to replace, but we could probably have a
configure option to prevent it --- or to force it, in case people want
to try a non-system qsort on other platforms besides Solaris. Whenever
I see something like this, I wonder whether the problem is more
widespread than we know.
> ... so we can be fairly certain the problem is in the
> 32 bit library. Maybe the 64 bit one is better?
Good point. Please check it out and let us know.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2002-04-03 16:35:46 | Re: do foreign key checks lock parent table ? |
Previous Message | mlw | 2002-04-03 16:32:57 | Re: [GENERAL] Re : Solaris Performance - Profiling (Solved) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-04-03 16:41:19 | Re: ANALYZE after restore |
Previous Message | mlw | 2002-04-03 16:32:57 | Re: [GENERAL] Re : Solaris Performance - Profiling (Solved) |