From: | Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, 'Larry Rosenman' <lrosenman(at)pervasive(dot)com>, 'PostgreSQL Hackers List' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Exposing DEFAULT_PGSOCKET_DIR via a libpq function? |
Date: | 2006-03-29 04:43:25 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0603282028460.13056@frousa |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Larry Rosenman" <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> writes:
> > The other issue is borked installs where the server and libpq disagree.
> > What I'm looking for
> > is to expose what libpq has for it's default as well as what the server is
> > using. There is currently
> > no way to determine what libpq has for it's default. What happened in the
> > irc case was a partial re-install
> > with non-matching server and libpq.
>
> [ shrug... ] So? There isn't going to be any way that
> random-app-using-libpq is going to have a way to tell the user what the
> underlying copy of libpq is using for this default --- adding a call for
> that will be nothing more nor less than a waste of code space. You'd be
> best off running strings(1) over the libpq.so file when the question
> comes up.
When I encounter such behavior, my tool of choice tends to be strace(1)
rather than strings(1). That way, you know what exactly the thing it
wants that it is not finding is...
--
Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-29 04:47:15 | Re: Exposing DEFAULT_PGSOCKET_DIR via a libpq function? |
Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2006-03-29 04:18:53 | Re: Exposing DEFAULT_PGSOCKET_DIR via a libpq function? |