Re: [HACKERS] initdb problem

From: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck)
To: maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian)
Cc: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, emkxp01(at)mtcc(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk, meskes(at)online-club(dot)de, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] initdb problem
Date: 1998-08-28 03:52:45
Message-ID: m0zCFah-000EBPC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Jan, this is great. It would have taken me a long time to find this.
> Why my platform did not fail is a real mystery.
>
> Patch applied. I am looking at the vacuum problem now.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue

Bruce,

Seems that the addresses that where assigned when
pg_internal.init is created (don't know exactly when this
happens) are the same as they should be later (when it is
read into). I absolutely don't know why they are different
between these two situations at all, it are all addresses
from builtin functions, and the postgres image is allways the
same one. So I'm a little confused about it. But these are
the facts gdb told me.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-08-28 04:51:00 list macro names
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-08-28 03:37:08 Re: [HACKERS] initdb problem