Re: [HACKERS] DEC Alpha initdb partial fix

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> (I lost a block of mail a while back, so if this is 'old hat,',
> please let me know)
>
> Well, my eyes are about crossed, but I believe that I've found
> PART of the problem with initdb in 6.3 on the DEC Alpha. (I'm
> running Digital Unix 3.2, rather than 4.0, but I don't think that
> makes a difference.) This does NOT fix the problem, but I
> believe that it moves us closer. I'm hoping that this will
> trigger somebody else to know where else to look.
>
> In backend/utils/adt/oid.c, the routine oid8in() makes the
> assumption that an Oid is the same size as a pointer. Actually,
> I'm not quite sure why this code was written this way at all. It
> declares an array of pointers to Oids, and then fills in the
> pointers with the actual Oids. Sorry I can't provide a true
> diff output at this time - the code is too hacked up. Simply
> replacing '*result' with 'result' throughout the routine, except
> on the declaration, which should be

Try the oid.c from 6.2.1. I see no changes I can see in that code from
6.2.1 -> 6.3, and we are told 6.2.1 worked for Alpha. I believe this is
our last big item in 6.3 open issues.

Is the lack of index use in certain cases still true for some people? I
remember two people complaining about it.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)