Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l1tNq-0001XD-Fg for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:57:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l1tNp-0007Q0-6n for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:57:29 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l1tNp-0007Ps-03 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:57:29 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1l1tNm-0003Oz-Vl for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:57:28 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 10JFvPmq480661; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:57:25 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: James Hilliard cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Sergey Shinderuk , Thomas Munro Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Fix detection of pwritev support for OSX. In-reply-to: References: <20210119111625.20435-1-james.hilliard1@gmail.com> <479372.1611070041@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to James Hilliard message dated "Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:36:49 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <480659.1611071845.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:57:25 -0500 Message-ID: <480660.1611071845@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk James Hilliard writes: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 8:27 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> We already dealt with that by not selecting an SDK newer than the >> underlying OS (see 4823621db). > Tried that, doesn't work, not even sure how it could possibly fix this > issue at all, It worked for me and for Sergey, so we need to figure out what's different about your setup. What do you get from "xcrun --show-sdk-path" and "xcrun --sdk macosx --show-sdk-path"? What have you got under /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs ? > this can not be fixed properly by selecting a specific SDK version > alone, it's the symbols valid for a specific target deployment version > that matters here. I don't think I believe that argument. As a counterexample, supposing that somebody were intentionally cross-compiling on an older OSX platform but using a newer SDK, shouldn't they get an executable suited to the SDK's target version? (I realize that Apple thinks we ought to handle that through run-time not compile-time adaptation, but I have no interest in going there.) regards, tom lane