Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Dienstag, 19. Februar 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
>> Unfortunately, that gives the compiler enough of a syntactic clue
>> to guess that fseeko is probably an undeclared function, and therefore
>> *it will not error out*, only generate a warning, if it's
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please try the attached patch.
Shortly.
> What is currently the consequence of the problem? Does it fail to build,
> fail
> to run, or does it fail with large files?
The consequence of the problem is that pg_dump/pg_restore are compiled
without a
Am Dienstag, 19. Februar 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Previously, AC_FUNC_FSEEKO did this to test if fseeko was available:
> return !fseeko;
> Now it does this:
> return fseeko (stdin, 0, 0) && (fseeko) (stdin, 0, 0);
>
> Unfortunately, that gives the compiler enough of a syntactic clue
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> There seems to have been a bit of a brain cramp upstream :-(.
> Previously, AC_FUNC_FSEEKO did this to test if fseeko was available:
>
> return !fseeko;
>
> Now it does this:
>
> return fseeko (stdin, 0, 0) && (fseeko) (stdin, 0, 0);
>
> Unfortuna
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have you see these lines lower in configure.in?
> if test $ac_cv_func_fseeko = yes; then
> AC_SYS_LARGEFILE
> fi
> Is this broken too?
Yeah, I thought so at first, but looking closer I think it's not too
relevant to the problem. Th
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I am not sure this explains the BSD case. NetBSD/BSDi uses
> > fsetpos/fgetpos to implement fseeko/ftello.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "uses" --- are fseeko and ftello declared
> as macros that call the other two, or what?
There
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am not sure this explains the BSD case. NetBSD/BSDi uses
> fsetpos/fgetpos to implement fseeko/ftello.
What exactly do you mean by "uses" --- are fseeko and ftello declared
as macros that call the other two, or what?
I'd kinda have thought that the n
Tom Lane wrote:
> There seems to have been a bit of a brain cramp upstream :-(.
> Previously, AC_FUNC_FSEEKO did this to test if fseeko was available:
>
> return !fseeko;
>
> Now it does this:
>
> return fseeko (stdin, 0, 0) && (fseeko) (stdin, 0, 0);
>
> Unfortunately, that gives t
There seems to have been a bit of a brain cramp upstream :-(.
Previously, AC_FUNC_FSEEKO did this to test if fseeko was available:
return !fseeko;
Now it does this:
return fseeko (stdin, 0, 0) && (fseeko) (stdin, 0, 0);
Unfortunately, that gives the compiler enough of a syntacti
