Compilation of pg 7.4.17 fails on HP-UX

"Adrian Maier" <adrian.maier@gmail.com> writes:

I have just tried to compile postgresql 7.4.17 on a HP-UX 11.11 box
(PA-RISC) and the compliation fails in gist.

I do not think anyone cares about making 7.4.x run on platforms it did
not support before. Use a newer PG release.

regards, tom lane

On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 11:46:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

"Adrian Maier" <adrian.maier@gmail.com> writes:

I have just tried to compile postgresql 7.4.17 on a HP-UX 11.11 box
(PA-RISC) and the compliation fails in gist.

I do not think anyone cares about making 7.4.x run on platforms it did
not support before. Use a newer PG release.

Actually, this is PA-RISC, not the numerous emails we've gotten this
week about HPUX on ia64 (what is it with the HPUX guys this week?)

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/supported-platforms.html
indicates that HPUX on PA-RISC should work...
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org> writes:

On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 11:46:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

"Adrian Maier" <adrian.maier@gmail.com> writes:

I have just tried to compile postgresql 7.4.17 on a HP-UX 11.11 box
(PA-RISC) and the compliation fails in gist.

I do not think anyone cares about making 7.4.x run on platforms it did
not support before. Use a newer PG release.

Actually, this is PA-RISC, not the numerous emails we've gotten this
week about HPUX on ia64 (what is it with the HPUX guys this week?)

Oh, my mistake --- obviously hadn't consumed enough caffeine this
morning.

[ digs around a bit... ] However, I might have been right for the
wrong reasons. I'm thinking Adrian is trying to build for 64-bit
HPPA (a beast the 7.4 supported-platforms matrix doesn't know about),
and is falling foul of this problem:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-03/msg01196.php
Teodor fixed that in the 8.0 devel cycle, but couldn't back-patch it
because it meant an on-disk layout change of gist indexes.

What I suspect is that gcc 3.3.3 doesn't have the specific error checks
I complained of in the above message, but simply generates bogus
assembly code for the incorrect C code :-(

regards, tom lane

On 8/10/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org> writes:

On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 11:46:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

"Adrian Maier" <adrian.maier@gmail.com> writes:

I have just tried to compile postgresql 7.4.17 on a HP-UX 11.11 box
(PA-RISC) and the compliation fails in gist.

I do not think anyone cares about making 7.4.x run on platforms it did
not support before. Use a newer PG release.

Actually, this is PA-RISC, not the numerous emails we've gotten this
week about HPUX on ia64 (what is it with the HPUX guys this week?)

Oh, my mistake --- obviously hadn't consumed enough caffeine this
morning.

[ digs around a bit... ] However, I might have been right for the
wrong reasons. I'm thinking Adrian is trying to build for 64-bit
HPPA (a beast the 7.4 supported-platforms matrix doesn't know about),
and is falling foul of this problem:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-03/msg01196.php
Teodor fixed that in the 8.0 devel cycle, but couldn't back-patch it
because it meant an on-disk layout change of gist indexes.

What I suspect is that gcc 3.3.3 doesn't have the specific error checks
I complained of in the above message, but simply generates bogus
assembly code for the incorrect C code :-(

So it looks like this is simply a known issue that hasn't been backpatched.
I'll simply use 8.2 .

Thanks for your answers,
Adrian Maier

"Adrian Maier" <adrian.maier@gmail.com> writes:

On 8/10/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

[ digs around a bit... ] However, I might have been right for the
wrong reasons. I'm thinking Adrian is trying to build for 64-bit
HPPA (a beast the 7.4 supported-platforms matrix doesn't know about),
and is falling foul of this problem:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-03/msg01196.php

So it looks like this is simply a known issue that hasn't been backpatched.

You didn't confirm in so many words: were you trying to build 64-bit?
I'd have expected a 32-bit build to work.

regards, tom lane

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 08:08:55AM +0300, Adrian Maier wrote:

So it looks like this is simply a known issue that hasn't been backpatched.
I'll simply use 8.2 .

Ok, I'll bite... if you can use 8.2, why were you trying with 7.4
instead? It sounds like you're paying new-car-prices for something
that's 5 years old...
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

On 8/10/07, Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 08:08:55AM +0300, Adrian Maier wrote:

So it looks like this is simply a known issue that hasn't been backpatched.
I'll simply use 8.2 .

Ok, I'll bite... if you can use 8.2, why were you trying with 7.4
instead? It sounds like you're paying new-car-prices for something
that's 5 years old...

The first attempt was with 7.4 because our application is still running
on that version in production. An upgrade is something that has to be
done, but it will take a little more time to test and do it properly.

Right now I am just doing some tests: i happen to have access to this
PA-RISC server and was curious to see how is the application behaving
if the database is running on such a machine.
But there are no chances to use such a server in production, so my tests
are purely ... educative .

Cheers,
Adrian Maier