Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload

From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Robert Creager <Robert_Creager(at)logicalchaos(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload
Date: 2005-11-09 15:06:16
Message-ID: e692861c0511090706j2d314bf6lb92a68010ed9d76b@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/8/05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
> > Layout of GIST_SPLITVEC struct has been changed from 8.0, I'm afraid that old
> > .so is used. spl_(right|left)valid fields was added to GIST_SPLITVEC.
>
> Does look a bit suspicious ... Robert, are you *sure* you've got the
> right version of pgsphere linked in? Did you compile it against the
> right set of Postgres header files?

So it turned out that he didn't... Is this a sign that we need to
include a versioning symbol in SOs so we can give a nice clear error
message "module foo compiled for PostgreSQL 8.0.2 this is PostgreSQL
8.1." Is there ever a case where we want people using modules compiled
against an old version, are there cases where users can't recompile
their modules but the old ones would work?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joel Stevenson 2005-11-09 15:19:17 BUG #2033: Assertion Failure: File: "procarray.c", Line: 492
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-11-09 14:56:51 Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload