Re: Building on S390

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, postgres-xc-developers(at)lists(dot)sourceforge(dot)net
Subject: Re: Building on S390
Date: 2013-11-23 16:49:22
Message-ID: 15379.1385225362@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 23:32 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
>> Debian policy is to always use -fPIC

> My point is, they compile the *backend* as position-independent code.
> The backend is not a shared library. Maybe it is in Postgres-XC? But
> at least this makes their build process significantly different, so it's
> doubtful that this is a PG-proper issue.

Note that that's not an unreasonable decision in itself, if it's done
pursuant to some distro policy that daemons should run with ASLR enabled.
(Right before I left Red Hat, we were looking into building PG with -fPIE
for that reason. It didn't happen yet because of a kernel bug[1], but
it will eventually.)

But there's too many moving parts here for us to know exactly what's going
wrong without more evidence. The only thing that *is* pretty clear is
that the failure is not with the stock PG build anyway, so changing the
properties of the stock build sounds like the wrong response. Personally
I'd think it is the job of the Debian package maintainer to determine why
this is breaking.

regards, tom lane

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952946

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karsten Hilbert 2013-11-23 17:07:46 Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2013-11-23 16:44:42 Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency