| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, girgen(at)FreeBSD(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: More buildfarm stuff |
| Date: | 2005-07-19 19:59:52 |
| Message-ID: | 42DD5BB8.5040304@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>"Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
>
>
>>On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 03:11:31PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>None of those patches are necessary; if they were, we'd be seeing the
>>>failures at the build stage, not at runtime.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>Anyone have any ideas on why octopus is failing then?
>>
>>
>
>Well, the original report said that we needed to link the backend with
>libc_r instead of libc to make libpython happy. If there's not a
>separate "libpthread" on your machine then that may well be the case.
>The question then is whether we are prepared to do that (and risk
>unknown consequences in performance and stability) to support plpython.
>
>
>
>
Wouldn't it be odd if that were the case for python but not perl?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-07-19 20:04:06 | Re: More buildfarm stuff |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-07-19 19:56:19 | Re: More buildfarm stuff |