Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL 8.1.0 RHEL / Debian incompatible packages
Devrim GUNDUZ
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 12:14 +0100, Richard van den Berg wrote:
> I just tried to move my database files over from a CentOS 4.2 (RHEL AS 4
> clone) machine to Debian 3.1. Unfortunately, the server complains:
>
> 2005-12-07 11:55:04 CET FATAL: database files are incompatible with server
> 2005-12-07 11:55:04 CET DETAIL: The database cluster was initialized
> without HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP but the server was compiled with
> HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP.
> 2005-12-07 11:55:04 CET HINT: It looks like you need to recompile or
> initdb.
>
> The message is clear enough, but I'm kinda disappointed because I am
> using the official packages for both distribution:
Well, this is because Debian packages are built
with --enable-integer-datetimes. However we don't build the RPMs with
that. This has been proposed before AFAIR, but it has been rejected.
Also I want to remind that these packages are not "official". Debian
packages and RPMs are built by different people.
So you should dump/reload I think, or rebuild our SRPM
with --enable-integer-datetimes enabled.
Regards,
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
Devrim GUNDUZ
Hi,
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Richard van den Berg wrote:
> I just tried to move my database files over from a CentOS 4.2 (RHEL AS 4
> clone) machine to Debian 3.1. Unfortunately, the server complains:
>
> 2005-12-07 11:55:04 CET FATAL: database files are incompatible with server
> 2005-12-07 11:55:04 CET DETAIL: The database cluster was initialized
> without HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP but the server was compiled with
> HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP.
> 2005-12-07 11:55:04 CET HINT: It looks like you need to recompile or
> initdb.
>
> The message is clear enough, but I'm kinda disappointed because I am
> using the official packages for both distribution:
Well, this is because Debian packages are built
with --enable-integer-datetimes. However we don't build the RPMs with
that. This has been proposed before AFAIR, but it has been rejected.
So you should dump/reload I think, or rebuild our SRPM
with --enable-integer-datetimes enabled.
Regards,
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majo...@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Tom Lane
> Is there a good reason that the official RPM on postgresql.org is not
> build with HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP ? It would have been so nice if this
> would have worked. :-/
You've got that 100% backwards: you should be complaining to Debian that
it's not their business to editorialize on the default setting.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
Martin Pitt
Stephen Frost [2005-12-13 11:06 -0500]:
> Honestly, in the end I think the default should be changed. It could
> fall-back to double with a warning (if it doesn't already) if the
> compiler doesn't support 64bit integers.
> [...]
> I don't think the Debian default should be changed though. If, say, an
> m68k user actually complained about the default not being the right
> option for them then I'd say we should consider having configure options
> be different for those architectures and not that we should move
> everyone to using doubles.
I fully agree. (BTW, I doubt that double operations on m68k would be
any faster than integer ones...)
Thanks,
Martin
--
Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org
In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?
Tom Lane
> I fully agree. (BTW, I doubt that double operations on m68k would be
> any faster than integer ones...)
Debatable at best --- most later 68k machines had hardware FPUs, but
none of them had any 64-bit-int instructions...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?