Thread

1. Re: [HACKERS] Patches for Postgresql on Linux/Alpha!

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 1999-07-30T17:59:38Z

   Ryan Kirkpatrick <rkirkpat@nag.cs.colorado.edu> writes:
   > 	Ok, they are finally here.... This is an initial release to just
   > the pgsql lists. If no one sees any problems with the below announcement
   > or patches, I will then forward them on to the rest of the world (save for
   > the RH pgsql packager, as I do not have his email address). Also, as
   > others see fit, maybe the patches should be put on the FTP site, and maybe
   > a small annoucement somewhere on the web site, so people can find the
   > patches, even if they missed them on the mailing lists.
   
   OK, after a *real* quick once-over, it certainly seems that 99% of the
   bulk is changes for the fmgr interface problem (although it looks like
   int32s were changed to Datum also?  Is that really needed on Alpha?)
   
   I see a few hacks on time_t that I am worried about; those will almost
   certainly cause problems for other architectures if not ifdef'd.
   
   As I commented before, I would like to think about a different solution
   to the fmgr problem for 6.6, so I'd like to hold off committing any of
   these fmgr changes into the current tree until we have a consensus on
   what the best approach is.  But we could commit them into the 6.5 branch
   after sufficient testing.  That would be nice for PPC folks as well, as
   I'll bet these changes would let them run with more than -O0 ...
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

2. Re: [HACKERS] Patches for Postgresql on Linux/Alpha!

   Ryan Kirkpatrick <rkirkpat@nag.cs.colorado.edu> — 1999-07-31T02:21:18Z

   On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
   
   > OK, after a *real* quick once-over, it certainly seems that 99% of the
   > bulk is changes for the fmgr interface problem (although it looks like
   > int32s were changed to Datum also?  Is that really needed on Alpha?)
   > 
   > I see a few hacks on time_t that I am worried about; those will almost
   > certainly cause problems for other architectures if not ifdef'd.
   
   	I have hardly looked at the patch in detail at all, so I can't
   respond to your specific observation at this time. I just wanted something
   that made at least alpha work out the door first, and then go back and
   review the patch in detail to add #ifdef (__alpha__) as needed.
   
   > As I commented before, I would like to think about a different solution
   > to the fmgr problem for 6.6, so I'd like to hold off committing any of
   > these fmgr changes into the current tree until we have a consensus on
   > what the best approach is.  But we could commit them into the 6.5 branch
   > after sufficient testing.  That would be nice for PPC folks as well, as
   > I'll bet these changes would let them run with more than -O0 ...
   
   	I never asked for these patches to be put in the pgsql source tree
   in anyway. This is just so people who want to run 6.5.1 on Linux/Alpha
   will be able to, with a relatively clean and well working binary. The
   patches for the pgsql source tree will be trickling in over the next few
   months as I evaluate the alpha patches in detail.
   
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."                     |
   |                                            --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV)    |
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   |  Ryan Kirkpatrick  |  Boulder, Colorado  | rkirkpat@nag.cs.colorado.edu  |
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   |               http://www-ugrad.cs.colorado.edu/~rkirkpat/                |
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------