Re: [INTERFACES] PL_na undeclared

On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 11:52:08 -0400
> From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> To: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
> Cc: Brian P Millett <bpm(at)ec-group(dot)com>, John Cusick <jcusick(at)exotrope(dot)net>,
> pgsql-interfaces(at)hub(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] PL_na undeclared
>
> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> > Uh, Tom, the Pg module works for me under Perl _5.00503_. The test.pl
> > script completes and all that. The key is building the module with the
> > version of perl that the module is going to run against (and rebuilding
> > the module when you upgrade perl).
>
> Hmm. But IIRC, the complaints were from people who were trying and
> failing to build the Pg module in the first place. Could it be that
> they have mucked-up Perl installations (headers different revision
> from Perl binary, or some such)?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Tom, et. al.

Might have been a mucked up installation here. I decided to delete
the 5.0004.04 RPM and jump up to 5.005.02 source RPM and build from scratch.
Before doing so, i did a recursive grep on the entire 5.005.02 distro and
'PL_na' was all over the place. I then re-built all my perl add-ons from
scratch, including the postgreSQL perl mod and all is fine here. I
absolutely found no references to 'PL_na' in the earlier distro (and I
grepped a couple of times, 'cause I'm still learning everything and don't
always believe what I see :-)

Anyway, I'm happy now and can continue on with my db demo at my
workplace, which is entirely MS based. It's amazing to me that a 130,000
line database returns answers quicker on UNIX(Linux)/PostgreSQL from an
ancient Cyrix 386 masqaurading as a 486 than MS Access does from a PentiumII
NT server. ( Not much quicker, but check the hardware :-)

Thanks again for all the replies and suggestions. The support here
is terrific and appreciated. Maybe I will soon be a Perl guru after all,
you never know...

Sincerely,
John C.