On tis, 2009-12-01 at 18:03 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
2009/12/1 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
What are we going to do for build farm members who don't support
threading? Is someone going to manually update their configure
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2009-12-01 at 18:03 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
2009/12/1 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
What are we going to do for build farm members who don't support
threading? Is someone going to
Bruce Momjian wrote:
It would seem like we ought to try the one-liner patch Magnus proposed
(ie flip the default) and see what the effects are, before we go with
the much larger patch Bruce wrote.
OK, done --- let the breakage begin. (I will be monitoring the build
farm and will work
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2009-11-30 at 12:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
! for thread safety; use --disable-thread-safety to disable
threading.])
--disable-thread-safety does not disable threading, it disables thread
safety.
Good point! Patch updated and attached.
What are we
2009/12/1 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On m?n, 2009-11-30 at 12:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
! for thread safety; use --disable-thread-safety to disable
threading.])
--disable-thread-safety does not disable threading, it disables thread
safety.
Good point!
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
2009/12/1 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
What are we going to do for build farm members who don't support
threading? Is someone going to manually update their configure flags?
Yeah, I think so.
Unless there's a whole lot of them, in which case
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
2009/12/1 Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us:
What are we going to do for build farm members who don't support
threading? ?Is someone going to manually update their configure flags?
Yeah, I think so.
Unless there's a whole lot
Magnus Hagander wrote:
2009/11/24 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
ISTM that it should be as simple as the attached patch. Seems to work
for me :-) But I'm no autoconf guru, so maybe I missed something?
This patch sort of begs the question what
On mån, 2009-11-30 at 12:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
! for thread safety; use --disable-thread-safety to disable
threading.])
--disable-thread-safety does not disable threading, it disables thread
safety.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make
2009/11/24 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
ISTM that it should be as simple as the attached patch. Seems to work
for me :-) But I'm no autoconf guru, so maybe I missed something?
This patch sort of begs the question what about
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 08:29, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
2009/11/20 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On fre, 2009-11-20 at 08:39 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
2009/11/20 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On fre, 2009-11-20 at 02:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
ISTM that it should be as simple as the attached patch. Seems to work
for me :-) But I'm no autoconf guru, so maybe I missed something?
This patch sort of begs the question what about enable-thread-safety-force?
That looks even more like a wart now
On fre, 2009-11-20 at 08:39 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
2009/11/20 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On fre, 2009-11-20 at 02:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there any actual reason why we are building without thread safety
by default on most platforms?
Consistent defaults on all
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I don't have a good overview over how many platforms would be affected
The anniversary of this thread is a few days early:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/492ea404.5080...@esilo.com
--
Greg Smith2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Let me be more verbose: I would assume that we want the configure
defaults to be the same on all platforms. We fail by default, for
example, if zlib and readline are not there, but you can turn them off
explicitly. If we turn thread-safety on by default, we
2009/11/20 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On fre, 2009-11-20 at 08:39 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
2009/11/20 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On fre, 2009-11-20 at 02:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there any actual reason why we are building without thread safety
by default on
Is there any actual reason why we are building without thread safety
by default on most platforms? Seems I get asked that every time
somebody forgets to add a --enable-thread-safety. Wouldn't it be
more logical to have that be the default, and provide
--disable-thread-safety if there are platforms
On fre, 2009-11-20 at 02:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there any actual reason why we are building without thread safety
by default on most platforms?
Consistent defaults on all platforms?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
2009/11/20 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On fre, 2009-11-20 at 02:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there any actual reason why we are building without thread safety
by default on most platforms?
Consistent defaults on all platforms?
So why do we have largefile enabled by default? And
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
2009/11/20 Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net:
On fre, 2009-11-20 at 02:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Is there any actual reason why we are building without thread safety
by default on most platforms?
Consistent
20 matches
Mail list logo
