Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
Hi. From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 04:58:19PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: pgbench.c: In function `main': pgbench.c:1257: warning: implicit declaration of function `getopt' adjustment of some reference is required for this. Why do you need to #undef EXEC_BACKEND, and is there a specific reason for removing the include of win32.h? I've applied the attached modified version of this patch; it keeps win32.h in there (correctly re-marked as a system header). I think the fundamental issue must be that Hiroshi's system sets HAVE_GETOPT and HAVE_GETOPT_H. The former causes port.h to not supply a declaration of getopt(), so we'd better include to declare it. Together with the changes for FRONTEND applied a little bit ago, I hope that this issue is fully resolved in CVS HEAD. Let me know if there's still a problem. Yeah, I think that it felt it very refreshed.!:-) Though FRONTEND needs adjustment to consider carefully. Thanks. Regards, Hiroshi Saito ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
Hi. - Original Message - From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:21:59PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: What do you think? I will be offline for most of the time for a couple of days, so it will probably be until early next week before I can look at this. Just a FYI, but I'll be happy to look at it as soon as I can. I like the FRONTEND solution, but not the EXEC_BACKEND stuff --- my objection there is that this formulation hard-wires EXEC_BACKEND to get defined only on a WIN32 build, which complicates testing that code on other platforms. (The whole point of the separate EXEC_BACKEND #define was to let non-Windows developers test that code path, remember.) Ah yes, I also worried that a little change might affect other platforms by the complexity of the action. we memorable it.. My feeling is that we should continue to have EXEC_BACKEND driven by CPPFLAGS, since that's easily tweaked on all platforms. I'm still not clear on why anything needs to be done with NON_EXEC_STATIC --- AFAICS that symbol is only referenced in half a dozen backend-only .c files, so I think we can just leave it as it stands. Although I am attached by the reason it happen the problem in a reference relation by windows, main() which it is called thinks in original that it is good by "non static". I look at that "non static ..main()" fully operates by FreeBSD. Does it influence performance? In the interests of pushing 8.3beta forward, I'm going to go ahead and commit this patch with the above mods; the buildfarm will let us know if there's anything seriously wrong ... Yeah, since it becomes better. thanks! Regards, Hiroshi Saito ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 04:58:19PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: >> pgbench.c: In function `main': >> pgbench.c:1257: warning: implicit declaration of function `getopt' >> >> adjustment of some reference is required for this. > Why do you need to #undef EXEC_BACKEND, and is there a specific reason for > removing the include of win32.h? I've applied the attached modified version of this patch; it keeps win32.h in there (correctly re-marked as a system header). I think the fundamental issue must be that Hiroshi's system sets HAVE_GETOPT and HAVE_GETOPT_H. The former causes port.h to not supply a declaration of getopt(), so we'd better include to declare it. Together with the changes for FRONTEND applied a little bit ago, I hope that this issue is fully resolved in CVS HEAD. Let me know if there's still a problem. regards, tom lane Index: pgbench.c === RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c,v retrieving revision 1.71 retrieving revision 1.72 diff -c -r1.71 -r1.72 *** pgbench.c 25 Aug 2007 09:21:14 - 1.71 --- pgbench.c 27 Sep 2007 20:39:43 - 1.72 *** *** 24,33 #include #ifdef WIN32 ! #include "win32.h" #else #include #include #ifdef HAVE_GETOPT_H #include --- 24,34 #include #ifdef WIN32 ! #include #else #include #include + #endif /* ! WIN32 */ #ifdef HAVE_GETOPT_H #include *** *** 40,54 #ifdef HAVE_SYS_RESOURCE_H #include /* for getrlimit */ #endif - #endif /* ! WIN32 */ extern char *optarg; extern intoptind; - #ifdef WIN32 - #undef select - #endif - / * some configurable parameters */ --- 41,50 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:21:59PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: >> What do you think? > I will be offline for most of the time for a couple of days, so it will > probably be until early next week before I can look at this. Just a FYI, > but I'll be happy to look at it as soon as I can. I like the FRONTEND solution, but not the EXEC_BACKEND stuff --- my objection there is that this formulation hard-wires EXEC_BACKEND to get defined only on a WIN32 build, which complicates testing that code on other platforms. (The whole point of the separate EXEC_BACKEND #define was to let non-Windows developers test that code path, remember.) My feeling is that we should continue to have EXEC_BACKEND driven by CPPFLAGS, since that's easily tweaked on all platforms. I'm still not clear on why anything needs to be done with NON_EXEC_STATIC --- AFAICS that symbol is only referenced in half a dozen backend-only .c files, so I think we can just leave it as it stands. In the interests of pushing 8.3beta forward, I'm going to go ahead and commit this patch with the above mods; the buildfarm will let us know if there's anything seriously wrong ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 03:21:59PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > Hi. > > >>To be clear: my thought is to put "#define FRONTEND 1" into > >>postgres_fe.h and then eliminate ad-hoc definitions of it from a > >>boatload of Makefiles. A quick grep suggests that the only place this > >>wouldn't work too well is src/port/, but that could keep on doing what > >>it's doing. > > I tried it. and this is patch of test. Then, I still think that > consideration is required to a slight degree involving port. > > However, This fully satisfied the following tests. (regression test is all > pass) > > FreeBSD > MinGW(gcc) > MS-VC8 > > What do you think? I will be offline for most of the time for a couple of days, so it will probably be until early next week before I can look at this. Just a FYI, but I'll be happy to look at it as soon as I can. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
Hi. To be clear: my thought is to put "#define FRONTEND 1" into postgres_fe.h and then eliminate ad-hoc definitions of it from a boatload of Makefiles. A quick grep suggests that the only place this wouldn't work too well is src/port/, but that could keep on doing what it's doing. I tried it. and this is patch of test. Then, I still think that consideration is required to a slight degree involving port. However, This fully satisfied the following tests. (regression test is all pass) FreeBSD MinGW(gcc) MS-VC8 What do you think? Regards, Hiroshi Saito FRONTEND_PATCH Description: Binary data ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
Hi. From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Hiroshi Saito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perhaps instead postgres_fe.h should #define FRONTEND? Yes, I feared that the physique of a main part broke. Then, Magnus said the same suggestion as you. It seems that it needs to be brushup. I am going to improve by the reason referred to as that FRONTEND influences nmake (libpq) again. Probably, Mugnus is operating main part.? To be clear: my thought is to put "#define FRONTEND 1" into postgres_fe.h and then eliminate ad-hoc definitions of it from a boatload of Makefiles. A quick grep suggests that the only place this wouldn't work too well is src/port/, but that could keep on doing what it's doing. I think sufficient suggestion. I'm not in a good position to test this, because it will mainly matter on Windows which I don't do. Anyone else have a chance to try it? I want, will try it. of course, work of Magnus is not barred. Thanks! Regards, Hiroshi Saito ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
"Hiroshi Saito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Perhaps instead postgres_fe.h should #define FRONTEND? > Yes, I feared that the physique of a main part broke. Then, Magnus said the > same suggestion as you. It seems that it needs to be brushup. > I am going to improve by the reason referred to as that FRONTEND influences > nmake (libpq) again. Probably, Mugnus is operating main part.? To be clear: my thought is to put "#define FRONTEND 1" into postgres_fe.h and then eliminate ad-hoc definitions of it from a boatload of Makefiles. A quick grep suggests that the only place this wouldn't work too well is src/port/, but that could keep on doing what it's doing. I'm not in a good position to test this, because it will mainly matter on Windows which I don't do. Anyone else have a chance to try it? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
Hi. From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Hiroshi Saito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Why do you need to #undef EXEC_BACKEND, and is there a specific reason for removing the include of win32.h? I put in in order to avoid -D of the Makefile. If that matters, the problem is that somebody put the wrong stuff in the wrong include file. Backend-only things ought to go in postgres.h not c.h. In particular this is wrongly placed: /* EXEC_BACKEND defines */ #ifdef EXEC_BACKEND #define NON_EXEC_STATIC #else #define NON_EXEC_STATIC static #endif but AFAICS it doesn't affect anything that pgbench would care about. So I'm wondering *exactly* what goes wrong if you don't #undef EXEC_BACKEND in pgbench. As for the FRONTEND #define, that seems essential on Windows (and on no other platform) because port/win32.h uses it. But putting the #define into pgbench.c (and by implication into anything else we build on Windows) sure seems like a broken approach. Where else could we put it? It looks like right now that's left to the build system, which might or might not be a good idea, but if it is a good idea then pgbench must be getting missed. Perhaps instead postgres_fe.h should #define FRONTEND? Yes, I feared that the physique of a main part broke. Then, Magnus said the same suggestion as you. It seems that it needs to be brushup. I am going to improve by the reason referred to as that FRONTEND influences nmake (libpq) again. Probably, Mugnus is operating main part.? Thanks. Regards, Hiroshi Saito ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
"Hiroshi Saito" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Why do you need to #undef EXEC_BACKEND, and is there a specific reason for >> removing the include of win32.h? > I put in in order to avoid -D of the Makefile. If that matters, the problem is that somebody put the wrong stuff in the wrong include file. Backend-only things ought to go in postgres.h not c.h. In particular this is wrongly placed: /* EXEC_BACKEND defines */ #ifdef EXEC_BACKEND #define NON_EXEC_STATIC #else #define NON_EXEC_STATIC static #endif but AFAICS it doesn't affect anything that pgbench would care about. So I'm wondering *exactly* what goes wrong if you don't #undef EXEC_BACKEND in pgbench. As for the FRONTEND #define, that seems essential on Windows (and on no other platform) because port/win32.h uses it. But putting the #define into pgbench.c (and by implication into anything else we build on Windows) sure seems like a broken approach. Where else could we put it? It looks like right now that's left to the build system, which might or might not be a good idea, but if it is a good idea then pgbench must be getting missed. Perhaps instead postgres_fe.h should #define FRONTEND? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
Hi. Magnus $ make gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -fno-strict-aliasing -I../../src/interfaces/libpq -I. -I../../src/include -I./src/include/port/win32 -DEXEC_BACKEND "-I../../src/include/port/win32" -c -o pgbench.o pgbench.c gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -fno-strict-aliasing pgbench.o -L../../src/port -lpgport -L../../src/interfaces/libpq -lpq -L../../src/port -Wl,--allow-multiple-definition -lpgport -lm -lws2_32 -lshfolder -o pgbench I put in in order to avoid -D of the Makefile. Regards, Hiroshi Saito On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 04:58:19PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: Hi Magnus. pgbench.c: In function `main': pgbench.c:1257: warning: implicit declaration of function `getopt' adjustment of some reference is required for this. and this is a FRONTEND program. patch is smooth at VC8 and MinGW (gcc). Hi! Why do you need to #undef EXEC_BACKEND, and is there a specific reason for removing the include of win32.h? //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 04:58:19PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > Hi Magnus. > > pgbench.c: In function `main': > pgbench.c:1257: warning: implicit declaration of function `getopt' > > adjustment of some reference is required for this. > and this is a FRONTEND program. > patch is smooth at VC8 and MinGW (gcc). Hi! Why do you need to #undef EXEC_BACKEND, and is there a specific reason for removing the include of win32.h? //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
[PATCHES] Warning is adjusted of pgbench.
Hi Magnus. pgbench.c: In function `main': pgbench.c:1257: warning: implicit declaration of function `getopt' adjustment of some reference is required for this. and this is a FRONTEND program. patch is smooth at VC8 and MinGW (gcc). Regards, Hiroshi Saito pgbench_patch Description: Binary data ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
