Re: Making PostgreSQL 7.4 (CVS) work properly on OS X 10.3 (7B85) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bob Ippolito
Subject Re: Making PostgreSQL 7.4 (CVS) work properly on OS X 10.3 (7B85)
Date
Msg-id 6A96515D-11B7-11D8-92AB-000A95686CD8@redivi.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Making PostgreSQL 7.4 (CVS) work properly on OS X 10.3 (7B85)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Making PostgreSQL 7.4 (CVS) work properly on OS X 10.3 (7B85)
List pgsql-hackers
On Nov 8, 2003, at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bob Ippolito <bob@redivi.com> writes:
>> On Nov 8, 2003, at 12:31 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I have just in the past couple hours realized that ps_status.c is
>>> seriously broken on OS X 10.3.  It appears that Apple has randomly
>>> decided to start #define'ing "BSD",
>
>> __APPLE__ is usually the only define you should really be depending on
>
> It is not that we are failing to recognize Darwin, it is that Darwin is
> falsely claiming to be something else.
>
>>> I don't see why system.c would affect the problem I'm seeing --- does
>>> this really fix pltcl for you?
>
>> If you're getting the NSLinkModule -> mmap crash, then yes.
>
> No, I'm seeing an NSLinkModule -> memcmp crash.  memcmp() is crashing
> because it is being passed a null pointer, and the pointer in question
> is null because ps_status.c zeroed it via "argv[1] = NULL".
>
> I modified ps_status to use the correct status update method
> (PS_CLOBBER_ARGV) but it still failed :-(.  It sorta looks like
> something in the dynamic loader may be relying on a stale copy of
> the "environ" pointer ... does that ring a bell at all?

Er... I meant memcmp.. Have you tried removing the system.c hack?  
That's what fixed it for me.  I'm pretty sure that the multiply defined 
_system is messing with things.  Is it possible to use execve to 
rewrite argv[0]?  I've had better luck with that.

-bob



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
Subject: Re: bugzilla (Was: What do you want me to do?)
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: What do you want me to do?