Thread: Re: [QUESTIONS] Testing Postgresql v6.3

At 15:17 -0000 on 5/3/98, The Hermit Hacker wrote:


>     You should technically be able to run it on a different port,
> *but* you might have problems with the shared libraries, where trying to
> run v6.3 is seeing v6.1's shared libraries, and won't work...

May I make a suggestion? In future versions, include the version number in
the names of the libraries.

Herouth

>
> At 15:17 -0000 on 5/3/98, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
>
> >     You should technically be able to run it on a different port,
> > *but* you might have problems with the shared libraries, where trying to
> > run v6.3 is seeing v6.1's shared libraries, and won't work...
>
> May I make a suggestion? In future versions, include the version number in
> the names of the libraries.

Then everyone has to update all their Makefiles after an upgrade.

--
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

At 17:51 -0000 on 8/3/98, Bruce Momjian wrote:


> >
> > At 15:17 -0000 on 5/3/98, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> >
> > >     You should technically be able to run it on a different port,
> > > *but* you might have problems with the shared libraries, where trying to
> > > run v6.3 is seeing v6.1's shared libraries, and won't work...
> >
> > May I make a suggestion? In future versions, include the version number in
> > the names of the libraries.
>
> Then everyone has to update all their Makefiles after an upgrade.

More likely, re-link a symbolic link.

If the executables in the postgres distributions rely on the libraries
themselves, they should link directly to the versioned library. There
should be a symbolic link giving the versioned library the generic name.

It's rather important to be able to easily keep two versions of the same
software on the same machine. It allows for testing of the new version,
cleaning it and weeding any problems, while still using the old version for
production stuff. I'm sure not everyone has a spare machine, and if you
have, it doesn't always have the same setup as your main machine (for
example, it may not be accessible from the web).

Herouth

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > At 15:17 -0000 on 5/3/98, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> >
> > >     You should technically be able to run it on a different port,
> > > *but* you might have problems with the shared libraries, where trying to
> > > run v6.3 is seeing v6.1's shared libraries, and won't work...
> >
> > May I make a suggestion? In future versions, include the version number in
> > the names of the libraries.
>
> Then everyone has to update all their Makefiles after an upgrade.

No, 'make install' would of course update the symlinks, just
as with any shared library.

/* m */