Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > OK, now we have a problem. :-( > > No kidding. I said to begin with that this plan to use target-specific > configuration knowledge to build a program executable by the host would > not work. I'm for reverting Peter's initial patch; maybe we can someday > find an answer, but this ain't it.
Yea, I knew my original NO_PGPORT wasn't going to be the last, but now we are stuck. Add to this something Magnus mentioned that I did not see until just now. The backend links in timezone/SUBSYS.o, which doesn't use pgport, so you have pgport versions and native versions of some functions in the same backend binary. I am not sure that will always work. Add to that, are those object files fully compatible with the backend? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
