John R Pierce wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > No, but trying to build against a non-self-consistent set of files is > > bad. You really need a pg_config.h that matches the original build of > > the server, and you haven't got that. I think Greg's point is that > > trying to reverse-engineer that file is considerably more risky than > > building your own packages from scratch. > > > and once again totally concurring with what you are saying... for > laughs, I went ahead and tweaked the fields in a copy of the 32bit > pg_config.h that I suspected were obviously wrong, and rebuilt my module > against that, and it got through most of the pl/java test suite. > > > so I know I'm on the right track, I just need the right pg_config.h from > Bjorn and all will be well with my world.
Yes, great. One point is that while you are trying to fix this for the one-off case, we should be realizing that we need a proper fix so all your future upgrades will be clean, and other users will not also have this problem. I agree with your approach to first find out if the Solaris build is wrong, and then get that fixed. You are right that just rebuilding the install for pl/java would not have accomplished the larger fix. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
