* Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> [010306 11:39] wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Not only note the shm_nattch type, but also shm_segsz, and the "unused"
> > fields in between. I don't know a thing about the Linux kernel sources,
> > but this doesn't seem right.
> Red Hat 7, right? My RedHat 7 system isn't running RH 7 right now (it's
> this notebook that I'm running Win95 on right now), but see which RPM's
> own the two headers. You may be in for a shock. IIRC, the first system
> include is from the 2.4 kernel, and the second in the kernel source tree
> is from the 2.2 kernel.
> Odd, but not really broken. Should be fixed in the latest public beta
> of RedHat, that actually has the 2.4 kernel. I can't really say any
> more about that, however.
Y'know, I was only kidding about Linux going out of its way to
defeat the 'shm_nattch' trick... *sigh*
As a FreeBSD developer I'm wondering if Linux keeps compatibility
calls around for old binaries or not. Any idea?
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: The Hermit Hacker||Date: 2001-03-06 19:51:39|
|Subject: RE: mailing list messages|
|Previous:||From: G. Anthony Reina||Date: 2001-03-06 19:46:57|
|Subject: ERROR: cannot open relation center_out_analog_proc|