Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

Hi, On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 23:39 -0700, Ken Tanzer wrote: > Can I also ask y'all a more general question about this, specifically > related to how Postgres is packaged for RHEL/Centos?  I've got both 9.6 and > 9.2 installed.  In this case though, it seems that the 9.2 version is >

Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

On 5/23/2017 11:39 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote: Can I also ask y'all a more general question about this, specifically related to how Postgres is packaged for RHEL/Centos? I've got both 9.6 and 9.2 installed. In this case though, it seems that the 9.2 version is privileged/selected by default.

Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

> > The biggest problem is that I was out in the Sun too long today and was > not paying attention to what you posted. This part: > > PATH=/usr/local/pgsql96/bin:$PATH > > is from how I installed various versions of Postgres from source on my > machine. My guess is it does not match your setup.

Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

On 5/23/2017 4:54 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote: But the install still goes to 9.2: PATH=/usr/local/pgsql96/bin/:$PATH make USE_PGXS=1 install | /bin/mkdir -p '/usr/pgsql-9.2/share/contrib' earlier you said something about /usr/pgsql-9.6/bin ... is it that, or is it

Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

On 05/23/2017 05:54 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote: On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Adrian Klaver > wrote: Sorry, not sure I follow what is the trailing part here? Does the compile stage specify where a module is to be installed? Or is

Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 05/23/2017 05:27 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote: > >> >> But the install still goes to 9.2: >> >> PATH=/usr/local/pgsql96/bin/:$PATH make USE_PGXS=1 install >> >> >> Did you do: >> >>

Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

On 05/23/2017 05:27 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote: But the install still goes to 9.2: PATH=/usr/local/pgsql96/bin/:$PATH make USE_PGXS=1 install Did you do: PATH=/usr/local/pgsql96/bin/:$PATH make USE_PGXS=1 clean all I did. Or is there some environment variable set

Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

> > >> But the install still goes to 9.2: >> >> PATH=/usr/local/pgsql96/bin/:$PATH make USE_PGXS=1 install >> > > Did you do: > > PATH=/usr/local/pgsql96/bin/:$PATH make USE_PGXS=1 clean all > > I did. > Or is there some environment variable set that could be interfering? > > I didn't see

Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

On 05/23/2017 04:54 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote: Thanks Adrian, though still no luck for me. The compiling was working OK already, the install still goes to 9.2. Where did you get the table_log extension I no longer remember (it's been a few years), but my tgz file was the same as what's on

Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

Thanks Adrian, though still no luck for me. The compiling was working OK already, the install still goes to 9.2. > Where did you get the table_log extension > >> I no longer remember (it's been a few years), but my tgz file was the same as what's on pgfoundry > I usually do something

Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

On 05/22/2017 09:41 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote: Hi. I recently installed 9.6 on my Centos 6.9 server, alongside a still-running 9.2. I need to install a module for 9.6 (table_log) that is installed on 9.2. Where did you get the table_log extension I took the table_log Makefile and changed it to

[GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?

Hi. I recently installed 9.6 on my Centos 6.9 server, alongside a still-running 9.2. I need to install a module for 9.6 (table_log) that is installed on 9.2. I took the table_log Makefile and changed it to point to /usr/pgsql-9.6/bin/pg_config instead of 9.2. It is still installing into the 9.2