Re: PG84 and SSL on CentOS-5.5 was PG84 and SELinux - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Ray Stell
Subject Re: PG84 and SSL on CentOS-5.5 was PG84 and SELinux
Date
Msg-id 20101208010321.GA6699@cns.vt.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG84 and SSL on CentOS-5.5 was PG84 and SELinux  ("James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca>)
Responses Re: PG84 and SSL on CentOS-5.5 was PG84 and SELinux  ("James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@harte-lyne.ca>)
List pgsql-general
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:15:45PM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Tue, December 7, 2010 16:56, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >
> > No those lib differences are both still 32bit. You would have a
> > problem if one was 64bit. So you should be fine there.
> >
> > Joshua D. Drake
> >
>
> Ok.  How do I get postgresql to cough up more processing detail on
> startup?  The message that I presently get makes no sense at all to
> me.

do we know that pg was compiled with ssl?  maybe a bonehead question,
but low hanging fruit is my specialty.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Jonathan Tripathy
Date:
Subject: Uncommitted Data
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Uncommitted Data