Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE
Date: 2000-11-29 04:55:48
Message-ID: 26300.975473748@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> writes:
>> Here is the "Current" /usr/include/machine/lock.h:
>> ...
>> void	s_lock			__P((struct simplelock *));
>> ...

Ick.  Seems like the relevant question is not so much "why did it break"
as "how did it ever manage to work"?

I have no problem with renaming our s_lock, if that's what it takes,
but I'm curious to know why there is a problem now and not before.
We've called that routine s_lock for a *long* time, so it seems
like there must be some factor involved that I don't see just yet...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Larry RosenmanDate: 2000-11-29 04:56:49
Subject: Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE
Previous:From: Alfred PerlsteinDate: 2000-11-29 04:55:37
Subject: Re: Re: LOCK Fixes/Break on FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group