Re: PG 7.4 on Tru64 UNIX 4.0 + threads - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: PG 7.4 on Tru64 UNIX 4.0 + threads
Date
Msg-id 200312160132.hBG1Wfj20897@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to PG 7.4 on Tru64 UNIX 4.0 + threads  (Nikola Milutinovic <Nikola.Milutinovic@ev.co.yu>)
List pgsql-general
Yes, please tell use if your changed fixed your threading problem on OSF.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nikola Milutinovic wrote:
> Hi guys.
>
> Building 7.4 "as we speak". I've run into one minor building bug.
>
> HW: DEC AlphaStation 200
> OS: Digital UNIX 4.0D + SP9
> PG: 7.4 sources
>
> When I choose to build "with threading support", "configure" selects following
> from OSF1 template:
>
> THREAD_SUPPORT=yes
> NEED_REENTRANT_FUNCS=no         # 4.0 2003-09-13
> THREAD_LIBS="-pthread"
>
> Well, this breaks to compile, since ${THREAD_LIBS} will be added as an option of
> "/usr/bin/ld", which doesn't like it on 4.0D. I would propose to change it to:
>
> THREAD_SUPPORT=yes
> NEED_REENTRANT_FUNCS=no         # 4.0 2003-09-13
> THREAD_CPPFLAGS="-pthread"
> THREAD_LIBS="-lpthread"
>
> I'm building with the new flags and I'll see if it comes up, runs and survives
> the tests. If I'm successful, what is the proper channel for getting this update
> into the sources?
>
> Note: this is for 4.0 version, it might work flawlessly on Tru64 UNIX 5.x
>
> Nix.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Ausrack Webmaster"
Date:
Subject: FW: database failure..
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Relational data model dead?