| From: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: PageLayout footprint |
| Date: | 2008-08-11 13:48:41 |
| Message-ID: | 48A04339.1050903@sun.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas napsal(a):
> Zdenek Kotala wrote:
>> Similar is 32/64 bit compilation. It is handled on x86 by MAXALIGN but
>> MAXALIGN is same on SPARC for both binaries, but I'm not sure if it
>> works correctly.
>
> Are 32/64-bit binaries on Sparc incompatible, then? Does our control
> file check catch it? If not, what's causing it, and would the
> --footprint switch catch it?
>
It is what I don't know. controlfile only says "incorrect checksum in control
file". It seems to me that CRC computing does not work correctly. I check
pg_control footprint and it is same for 32/64. It seems to me a false positive
complain, but ...
Footprint switch should help show you why it is incompatible and also protect
you during development to break some structure.
Zdenek
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-08-11 14:07:20 | Re: Proposal: PageLayout footprint |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-08-11 13:42:36 | Re: proposal: UTF8 to_ascii function |