X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C0B9DC807; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:21:35 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88270-02; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:21:36 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6304C9DC800; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:21:33 -0400 (AST) Received: from mailgate.vale-housing.co.uk ([194.217.48.34] helo=vale-housing.co.uk) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1EyPcM-000BJB-ES; Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:21:34 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Infrastructure monitoring MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:21:33 -0000 Message-ID: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] Infrastructure monitoring Thread-Index: AcYZUNQ0jkaEfQUqROSmRWpcJz0WlAASGTBwAAhvkkcAAU/V4AAtZH2A From: "Dave Page" To: "John Hansen" , "Joshua D. Drake" Cc: "Guido Barosio" , "Marc G. Fournier" , "Josh Berkus" , , "Jim C. Nasby" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.329 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.329] X-Spam-Score: 0.329 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/119 X-Sequence-Number: 9307 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: John Hansen [mailto:john@geeknet.com.au]=20 > Sent: 15 January 2006 10:44 > To: Dave Page; Joshua D. Drake > Cc: Guido Barosio; Marc G. Fournier; Josh Berkus;=20 > pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Jim C. Nasby > Subject: RE: [pgsql-www] Infrastructure monitoring >=20 > > Oh, nice work. The only other issue I had when I tried to=20 > > build it a few days ago stemmed from the box having a too-new=20 > > version of autoconf, but that should be easy to resolve. >=20 > Don't you mean automake,autoheader, etc. > It seems to like -1.4 of those. Ah. > Have you attempted running it on a 64bit box? Nope. You? Regards, Dave