Re: [HACKERS] New horology failure

2004-05-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, in the case you have an install prefix of /usr, we wouldn't want relative installs because you would have /usr/bin and /usr/lib/postgresql and that wouldn't be relocatable. Why not? ISTM that the algorithm should go

Re: [HACKERS] New horology failure

2004-05-24 Thread Manfred Koizar
[resending...] On Sun, 23 May 2004 11:38:51 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I get this since Tom's commit. --- ./results/horology.out Sun May 23 11:39:49 2004 *** *** 1787,1796 ! | Sat Sep 22 18:19:20 2001 PDT | @ 34 years|

Re: [HACKERS] New horology failure

2004-05-24 Thread Magnus Hagander
I get this since Tom's commit. --- ./results/horology.out Sun May 23 11:39:49 2004 *** *** 1787,1796 ! | Sat Sep 22 18:19:20 2001 PDT | @ 34 years | Fri Sep 22 18:19:20 1967 PDT [...] --- 1787,1796 ! | Sat Sep 22 18:19:20 2001 PDT | @ 34

Re: [HACKERS] New horology failure

2004-05-24 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just got the failure again with make check after having configured with a new install directory. My guess is that horology needs some datafile from the install location. Not only a file, but the entire directory pginstall/share/timezone, with

Re: [HACKERS] New horology failure

2004-05-24 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I get this since Tom's commit. Ah-hah. It fails if you do make check and have not got any installation at the configured place, *and* the configured place isn't under someplace like /home/postgres. The reason is that relative_path doesn't work. On my

Re: [HACKERS] New horology failure

2004-05-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I get this since Tom's commit. Ah-hah. It fails if you do make check and have not got any installation at the configured place, *and* the configured place isn't under someplace like /home/postgres. The reason is that

Re: [HACKERS] New horology failure

2004-05-24 Thread Tom Lane
I said: The reason this only affects timezone is that there isn't anything else in /share that the backend needs to access. However I'm not quite sure why get_pkglib_path seems not to be having the same confusion... Actually, get_pkglib_path is wrong too. But the regression tests do not

Re: [HACKERS] New horology failure

2004-05-24 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, in the case you have an install prefix of /usr, we wouldn't want relative installs because you would have /usr/bin and /usr/lib/postgresql and that wouldn't be relocatable. Why not? ISTM that the algorithm should go something like this: 1. Take

Re: [HACKERS] New horology failure

2004-05-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, I will work on that. With everything now centralized it should be easier. --- Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, in the case you have an install prefix of /usr, we wouldn't want relative

Re: [HACKERS] New horology failure

2004-05-23 Thread Tom Lane
Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I get this since Tom's commit. On what platform? How is type time_t defined on your platform? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through

Re: [HACKERS] New horology failure

2004-05-23 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
I get this since Tom's commit. On what platform? How is type time_t defined on your platform? Hmmm, I just CVS up'd and all regression tests now pass... Chris ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster