On May 2, 12:09 pm, Kevin Field <kevinjamesfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 1, 12:41 pm, Kevin Field <kevinjamesfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 26, 2:08 pm, dp...@pgadmin.org (Dave Page) wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Kevin Field <kevinjamesfi...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 9:32 am, dp...@pgadmin.org (Dave Page) wrote: > > > > >> I don't know if there is any way we can solve it, except by reverting > > > >> back to 5.8 or advising users to use only one version. > > > > > I just had an idea--at least in the ActiveState distributions (not > > > > sure about Strawberry or Vanilla) they include versioned-filename > > > > binaries. So you can launch perl5.8.8.exe or perl5.10.0.exe and as > > > > long as it's in the path you get the exact right one. (As I found out > > > > when I went to try to figure out per-user paths, I somehow have both > > > > versions in the universal path.) Would that help? > > > > No, because we use the DLLs, not the .exe. But they do seem to be > > > versioned anyway, so there must be something else going on :-( > > > :( Well on my end, I haven't been able to figure out how to get it to > > see the right version. Do you know when the next beta or win32 > > installer build might be out so I can try again? > > Through some testing today I determined: > > 1) the installer decides on whether you have Perl / where it is before > the first opportunity to click 'back', so, right at the beginning. > 2) if I rename my Perl 5.8 directory--whether or not I rename my Perl > 5.10 directory--the installer cannot find it and does not present pl/ > perl[u] as an option a few Next-clicks later. > 3) if I rename my Perl 5.10 directory to where I had had my Perl 5.8 > directory, it's still not presented as an option > > So...what, is it insisting on perl58.dll at the beginning of the > install and then perl510.dll when it goes to actually use it? Let's > see...i'll rename things back (so it'll be an option), select the pl/ > perl options, and then rename the directories before clicking 'next'. > Result: same errors when it goes to activate plperl and plperlu. I > guess not.
This is actually a bit worse than I thought--I can't ditch 5.8, then. I haven't tried a full uninstall of 5.8 and 5.10 and then installing 5.10 and then installing pgsql. I guess that's the next thing to try. -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
