John R Pierce wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > No, but trying to build against a non-self-consistent set of files is
> > bad. You really need a pg_config.h that matches the original build of
> > the server, and you haven't got that. I think Greg's point is that
> > trying to reverse-engineer that file is considerably more risky than
> > building your own packages from scratch.
> >
> and once again totally concurring with what you are saying... for
> laughs, I went ahead and tweaked the fields in a copy of the 32bit
> pg_config.h that I suspected were obviously wrong, and rebuilt my module
> against that, and it got through most of the pl/java test suite.
>
>
> so I know I'm on the right track, I just need the right pg_config.h from
> Bjorn and all will be well with my world.
Yes, great. One point is that while you are trying to fix this for
the one-off case, we should be realizing that we need a proper fix so
all your future upgrades will be clean, and other users will not also
have this problem. I agree with your approach to first find out if the
Solaris build is wrong, and then get that fixed. You are right that
just rebuilding the install for pl/java would not have accomplished the
larger fix.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com