FW: beta5 ...

From: Matthew <matt(at)ctlno(dot)com>
To: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: FW: beta5 ...
Date: 2001-02-22 19:05:33
Message-ID: 183FA749499ED311B6550000F87E206C1FD01A@srv.ctlno.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I believe it was straight from CVS, perhaps it was the beta4 tarball.
> Don't know if that counts as a distribution tarball or not. I will test
> the 7.0.3 release, and double check what the error I'm getting if you
> would like.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Eisentraut [SMTP:peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 12:54 PM
> To: Matthew
> Cc: 'Vince Vielhaber'; Pete Forman; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] beta5 ...
>
> Matthew writes:
>
> > I think UP or SMP should be an option to check, perhaps just a box for
> the
> > number of processors. Also something to capture the compile flags. I
> have
> > a dual Ppro, and it compiles fine unless I use the -j3 or -j4 commands,
> > then I get an error.
>
> Which error?
>
> Parallel make doesn't work when you build from a CVS tree, but it should
> work with a distribution tarball.
>
> --
> Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martin A. Marques 2001-02-22 20:45:43 Re: GPL, readline, and static/dynamic linking
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-02-22 18:54:12 RE: beta5 ...