| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |
| Date: | 2014-02-07 03:25:35 |
| Message-ID: | 52F4522F.3020904@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2014/02/05 14:52), Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 02/05/2014 06:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I had been okay with the manual PGDLLIMPORT-sprinkling approach
>>> (not happy with it, of course, but prepared to tolerate it) as long
>>> as I believed the buildfarm would reliably tell us of the need for
>>> it. That assumption has now been conclusively disproven, though.
>
>> I'm kind of horrified that the dynamic linker doesn't throw its toys
>> when it sees this.
>
> Indeed :-(.
>
> The truly strange part of this is that it seems that the one Windows
> buildfarm member that's telling the truth (or most nearly so, anyway)
> is narwhal, which appears to have the oldest and cruftiest toolchain
> of the lot. I'd really like to come out the other end of this
> investigation with a clear understanding of why the newer toolchains
> are failing to report a link problem, and yet not building working
> executables.
Is it a linkage error?
Could you please show me the error message concretely?
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tsubasa Sakamoto | 2014-02-07 03:35:37 | Re: client encoding that psql command sets |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-02-07 01:41:02 | Re: Row-security on updatable s.b. views |