On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund writes:
>>> On 2016-04-18 11:24:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
(The thing that gave me pause about this was noticing that I could not
start two such postmasters concurre
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2016-04-18 11:24:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> (The thing that gave me pause about this was noticing that I could not
>>> start two such postmasters concurrently on my RHEL6 box, without changing
>>> the default syste
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-04-18 11:24:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (The thing that gave me pause about this was noticing that I could not
>> start two such postmasters concurrently on my RHEL6 box, without changing
>> the default system limits on number of SysV semaphores.)
> Hm, is that di
On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
>> On 2016-04-18 11:07:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Did you want to actually review this patch, or should I just push it?
>
>> No, I'm good, you should push it. I did a quick scan of the patch, and
>> it looks sane. For a
On 2016-04-18 11:24:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> (The thing that gave me pause about this was noticing that I could not
> start two such postmasters concurrently on my RHEL6 box, without changing
> the default system limits on number of SysV semaphores.)
Hm, is that different before/after the patch
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2016-04-18 11:07:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Did you want to actually review this patch, or should I just push it?
> No, I'm good, you should push it. I did a quick scan of the patch, and
> it looks sane. For a second I was concerned that there might be a
> situation i
On 2016-04-18 11:07:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On April 16, 2016 6:02:39 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I went ahead and prepared and tested such a patch; the version for 9.3
> >> is attached. (9.2 is identical modulo some pgindent-induced whitespace
> >> difference.) T
Andres Freund writes:
> On April 16, 2016 6:02:39 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I went ahead and prepared and tested such a patch; the version for 9.3
>> is attached. (9.2 is identical modulo some pgindent-induced whitespace
>> difference.) This doesn't look too hazardous to me, so I'm thinking
>>
On April 16, 2016 6:02:39 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote:
>I wrote:
>> So at this point I'm not sure what to do. I could back out the
>back-patch
>> of 44cd47c1d49655c5, which would mean accepting that 9.2/9.3 are
>broken
>> and will never be fixed for HPPA, as well as any other architectures
>that
>>
I wrote:
> So at this point I'm not sure what to do. I could back out the back-patch
> of 44cd47c1d49655c5, which would mean accepting that 9.2/9.3 are broken
> and will never be fixed for HPPA, as well as any other architectures that
> use the same fallback memory barrier implementation. The lac
This rabbit hole keeps getting deeper and deeper :-(
I realized a couple days ago that it had been close to three years since
I last tried building the further-back branches on my ancient HPPA box.
Not so surprisingly, things were broken: commits 37de8de9e33606a0 et al
had introduced use of memory
11 matches
Mail list logo
