| From: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Creager <Robert(dot)Creager(at)oracle(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "pgbuildfarm-members(at)pgfoundry(dot)org" <pgbuildfarm-members(at)pgfoundry(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] CREATE FUNCTION hang on test machine polecat on HEAD |
| Date: | 2011-06-07 18:42:01 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTikpKu7F9itneSQRYsprSR0zzEhPow@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | buildfarm-members pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:22, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Im looking at the "raw" perl 5.10.0 source... I wonder if apple is
>> shipping a modified version?
>
> You could find out by digging around at
> http://www.opensource.apple.com/
> polecat appears to be running OSX 10.6.7, so this is what you want:
> http://www.opensource.apple.com/tarballs/perl/perl-63.tar.gz
Thanks!
> Another question worth asking here is whether PG is picking up perl
> 5.10.0 or 5.8.9, both of which are shipped in this OSX release.
I was looking at
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=polecat&dt=2011-06-07%2015%3A23%3A34&stg=config
which seems to point at 5.10.0.
Robert: perl -V might be useful
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-06-07 18:43:46 | Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] CREATE FUNCTION hang on test machine polecat on HEAD |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-07 18:22:13 | Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] CREATE FUNCTION hang on test machine polecat on HEAD |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-06-07 18:43:46 | Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] CREATE FUNCTION hang on test machine polecat on HEAD |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-07 18:40:44 | Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks - now, with WIP patch |