![]() | |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
It runs on OS/2 Warp 4 too (Postgres V8 RC3). |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
Eric Caloone wrote: It runs on OS/2 Warp 4 too (Postgres V8 RC3). That is pretty hard to believe, since the code we distribute contains neither shared library support nor spinlock support nor any of the other port specific tweaks for OS/2. And someone else is currently working on porting to OS/2. What's up with that? |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Eric Caloone wrote: It runs on OS/2 Warp 4 too (Postgres V8 RC3). That is pretty hard to believe, since the code we distribute contains neither shared library support nor spinlock support nor any of the other port specific tweaks for OS/2. And someone else is currently working on porting to OS/2. What's up with that? Someone posted an 8.0rc4 binary and it is mentioned in the current FAQ, so yea, I think it works. |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
Bruce Momjian <pgman (AT) candle (DOT) pha.pa.us> writes: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Eric Caloone wrote: It runs on OS/2 Warp 4 too (Postgres V8 RC3). That is pretty hard to believe, since the code we distribute contains neither shared library support nor spinlock support nor any of the other port specific tweaks for OS/2. And someone else is currently working on porting to OS/2. What's up with that? Someone posted an 8.0rc4 binary and it is mentioned in the current FAQ, so yea, I think it works. Posting a binary doesn't mean that they didn't have to hack the source. As of 8.0 the spinlock support should be driven by CPU type not OS type, so as long as you build using a compiler that defines standard CPU symbols it should work. In particular I'd expect a gcc build on OS/2 to not have any issues about spinlocks. Shared libraries are another story --- there is no way we'd build shared libraries successfully without a Makefile.os2 and some additions to Makefile.shlib. Given the importance of plpgsql I don't think we could consider a build with --disable-shared to be a "supported platform". |
#6
| |||
| |||
|
|
Tom Lane wrote: Posting a binary doesn't mean that they didn't have to hack the source. I assume OS/2 is like our Novell port in that it doesn't compile using our CVS source but only with modified source. |
#7
| |||
| |||
|
|
Bruce Momjian <pgman (AT) candle (DOT) pha.pa.us> writes: Tom Lane wrote: Posting a binary doesn't mean that they didn't have to hack the source. I assume OS/2 is like our Novell port in that it doesn't compile using our CVS source but only with modified source. We don't have a Novell port --- it is not, and should not be, listed as a "supported platform" if it requires hacking the source. There may be a Novell port out there, but I don't take any responsibility for it ;-) |
#8
| |||
| |||
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |