Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Patch for m68k architecture

From: "Henry B(dot) Hotz" <hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov>
To: t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp
Cc: "Oliver Elphick" <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-ports(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Patch for m68k architecture
Date: 1999-06-14 00:39:23
Message-ID: v04020a15b389fe635705@[137.78.84.130]
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports

At 1:47 AM -0700 6/12/99, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>I have tried 6.4beta4 on NetBSD 1.3.3/m68k. It failed while running
>initdb:
>
>Creating template database in /usr/local/pgsql/data/base/template1
>
>FATAL: s_lock(001bbea3) at bufmgr.c:1992, stuck spinlock. Aborting.
>
>FATAL: s_lock(001bbea3) at bufmgr.c:1992, stuck spinlock. Aborting.
>
>Seems something really bad is going on...

That certainly seems bad enough, but I did not see that problem. Are you
talking about way back when 6.4 was still in beta? Or did you mean 6.5?

As I tried to post earlier: when I built 6.4.2 using the patches it built
fine and initdb worked. Most regression tests seemed ok-ish, but one of
them noticed that 'now' - 'current' was more than 200 days.

I had a problem building 6.5, but I think it was related to my
configuration rather than to Postgres.

Signature failed Preliminary Design Review.
Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated.
h(dot)b(dot)hotz(at)jpl(dot)nasa(dot)gov, or hbhotz(at)oxy(dot)edu

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Henry B. Hotz 1999-06-14 00:50:50 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Patch for m68k architecture
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-06-13 20:26:42 Re: [HACKERS] new patch

Browse pgsql-ports by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Henry B. Hotz 1999-06-14 00:50:50 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] Patch for m68k architecture
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-06-13 20:09:42 Re: [HACKERS] COPY bug?