On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 02:51:12PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I back-patched 7.4 as well, which is the oldest branch that has this
> code. The Cygwin people still need to fix their bug, since it's
> entirely possible to run the system out of FDs after we're up and
> running ... but it's surely a was
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 01:37:48AM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
> Bruce Momjian schrieb:
> >I am curious why Cygwin needs DLLINIT in Makefile.shlib, and Win32
> >doesn't:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >The only difference I see is that Cygwin uses $(DLLINIT) while Win32
> >does not. Is that correct? Why?
Reini,
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:16:49PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
> This time contrib is added to the cygwin package. It was not in 7.4.x.
Actually, contrib was included:
$ tar -tjf postgresql-7.4.5-1.tar.bz2 | fgrep contrib
usr/share/doc/postgresql-7.4.5/contrib/
usr/share/doc/pos
Yurgis,
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 04:18:06PM -0800, Yurgis Baykshtis wrote:
> I tried to raise the question on pg-hackers forum and cygwin forum
> (regarding readdir() misbehavior) but could not get any help so far :(
If you can produce a minimal test case that reproduces the problem, then
one of t
Andrew,
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 08:56:51AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Jason Tishler wrote:
> >Are you getting hangs or connection refused errors. The Cygwin
> >PostgreSQL README documents the following issue:
> >[snip]
>
> hangs - I have to kill the psql proce
Andrew,
On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 12:25:01AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> WinXP/cygwin/gcc version 3.3.1 (cygming special)
XP Home or Pro? What version of Cygwin?
> gives these
>
> tablecmds.c:3528: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break
> strict-aliasing rules
> [snip]
FWIW,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 08:57:16AM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Here: http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/ are ports of several unix
> utility programs (including bison and flex) for win32. From my
> experiences compiling the Peer Direct port, this is the easiest way to
> get started.
OK, I'll thro
Thomas,
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:55:42PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:10:05AM -0500, Thomas Swan wrote:
> > On 8/8/2003 5:49 AM, Jason Tishler wrote:
> > >Is this just the "--with-openssl" option? Does it build cleanly
> > >under
Thomas,
[I would have responded sooner, but I have been on vacation.]
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:10:05AM -0500, Thomas Swan wrote:
> On 8/8/2003 5:49 AM, Jason Tishler wrote:
> >Is this just the "--with-openssl" option? Does it build cleanly
> >under Cygwin? If so, wou
Carlos,
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 09:20:01AM +0200, Carlos Guzman Alvarez wrote:
> >I want to know if postgresql 7.4 beta 1 can be configured under
> >Cygwin with SSL support ??
> >
> >If the answer is positive how can i do it ?? or where can i found
> >documentation about this ( under linux or cygw
Bruce,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 03:04:05PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > All that probably needed to change for cygwin was to no longer
> > use sa_family_t in the getaddrinfo.c.
>
> But Jason reported he needed that typedef for sa_family_t. Jason, is
> that accurate.
Yes.
Bruce,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:49:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> This should fix most platforms. I am not sure how cygwin is going to
> handle this --- we might have to add a specific sa_family_t typedef
> for that platform --- MinGW does have sa_family_t, but probably
> doesn't need it an
Bruce,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 09:50:49PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, patch applied to typedef sa_family_t for cygwin. If other
> platforms need it, I will have to do something more generic.
I'm happy to report that the above patch solves one of Cygwin's current
build problems. However, C
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 04:54:21PM +0100, deststar wrote:
> On cygwin sa_family_t was undeclared, adding the following line:
> typedef unsigned short sa_family_t;
> to both:
> src/port/getaddrinfo.c
> src/include/libpq/pqcomm.h
Isn't the attached or fixing Cygwin itself a better approach?
> seeme
Bruce,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:42:30AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> To get into the FAQ, it should be something that happens _frequently_,
> hence FAQ.
Understood. That is why is said "for consideration."
> Fact is, cygwin may not even be needed in 7.4 because we are
> working on a native p
Richard,
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 02:27:22PM -0800, Richard Pais wrote:
> Just an explanation in the FAQ that the ipc-daemon is not running
> won't suffice. Because in my case I had ipc-daemon (version 1.11)
> running and it still hung (Jason's patch reported the IpcMemoryCreate
> error). Only wh
Tom,
Peter,
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 03:05:25PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:43:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > If you can detect that cygipc is not running, then ENOSYS seems the
> > best choice for reporting that. (ENOSPC would be misleading too.)
This post is just for closure -- both of the issues below have been
resolved:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:47:35AM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
> > > 1. Cygwin bison needs to be upgraded from 1.35 to 1.75 (i.e.,
> > > 1.50+) to process src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/preproc.y
>
Peter,
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 07:36:40PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
> > Hackers: As the Cygwin release that is actively supported is the
> > binary distribution that Jason builds, I would think this is OK to
> > be listed as supported if no-one disagrees...
>
> I disagree
Tom,
Peter,
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:43:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > To me, this is a bug in PostgreSQL.
>
> I disagree: just because cygipc returns error codes chosen at random
> doesn't mean that we should neglect the clear meaning of an error
Dave,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:00:20PM -, Dave Page wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jason Tishler [mailto:jason@;tishler.net]
> > Sent: 29 October 2002 18:58
> >
> > > Hackers: As the Cygwin release that is actively supported is the
>
Dave,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 04:57:58PM -, Dave Page wrote:
> All regression tests pass with the above hack on:
>
> CYGWIN_NT-5.1 PC9 1.3.14(0.62/3/2) 2002-10-24 10:48 i686 unknown
Thanks for the above.
> Hackers: As the Cygwin release that is actively supported is the
> binary distributio
Matthew,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 10:50:40PM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Are you compiling from CVS or from a released tarball?
CVS.
> The bison requirement was recently raised to bison 1.5 or above (1.75
> was recently released also.) This is an issue only when compiling
> from CVS, sin
Dave,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 08:58:12PM -, Dave Page wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jason Tishler [mailto:jason@;tishler.net]
> > Sent: 28 October 2002 20:42
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Request for supported platforms
> >
> > On Mon, Oct
Dave,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:20:16AM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:56:01PM -, Dave Page wrote:
> > Ok, but this is going to take a while as few of the mirrors seem to
> > have this release yet. I also need to download a new set of everything
&g
Dave,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 02:56:01PM -, Dave Page wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jason Tishler [mailto:jason@;tishler.net]
> > Sent: 28 October 2002 13:33
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Request for supported platforms
> >
> > Please try
Dave,
Thanks for the heads up...
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 10:31:00AM -, Dave Page wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@;candle.pha.pa.us]
> > Sent: 26 October 2002 03:17
> > Subject: [HACKERS] Request for supported platforms
> >
> > Folks. start sending
Michael,
Please post instead of sending private email.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:08:02PM +0200, Michael Steiner wrote:
> FAQ says: "A native port to MS Win NT/2000/XP is currently being worked
> on."
>
> => When is it expected to be available as a stable release?
I don't know.
> Will it be ba
Peter,
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 12:54:13PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Seems to build cleanly here now.
And here (and now) too.
> Perhaps anoncvs just hadn't sync'd up when you tried Jason?
I guess so -- very strange...
Anyway, sorry (again) for the noise and thanks for fixing the Cygwin
build.
Peter,
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 02:51:31PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jason Tishler wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 08:33:20PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Should all be fixed now.
> >
> > Huh? I don't see any recent CVS commits to indicate this.
Peter,
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 08:33:20PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
>
> > I get the following error when building beta 1 on CYGWIN_NT-5.1 PC9
> > 1.3.10(0.51/3/2) 2002-02-25 11:14 i686 unknown:
>
> Should all be fixed now.
Huh? I don't see any recent CVS commits to in
Dave,
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 12:54:50PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> I get the following error when building beta 1 on CYGWIN_NT-5.1 PC9
> 1.3.10(0.51/3/2) 2002-02-25 11:14 i686 unknown:
>
> make[3]: Entering directory
>`/usr/local/src/postgresql-7.3b1/src/backend/utils/mb/conversion_procs/cyrill
Dan,
The following is to help keep the archives accurate and should not be
construed as an argument against the native Win32 port.
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 10:02:14PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:
> And Cygwin requires a license for commercial use.
> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
The above is not
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 09:36:51AM -0400, mlw wrote:
> Jason Tishler wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:33:57PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > mlw wrote:
> > > > > Like I told Marc, I don't care. You spec o
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 09:33:57PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > mlw wrote:
> > > Like I told Marc, I don't care. You spec out what you want and I'll write
> > > it for Windows.
> > >
> > > That being said, a SysV IPC interface for native Windows would be kind of
> > > cool to have.
Bruce,
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 08:49:21PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> mlw wrote:
> > Like I told Marc, I don't care. You spec out what you want and I'll write it
> > for Windows.
> >
> > That being said, a SysV IPC interface for native Windows would be kind of
> > cool to have.
>
> I am wond
mlw,
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 05:25:02PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> A binary version of PostgreSQL for Windows should not use the cygwin
> dll. I know and understand there is some disagreement with this position,
> but in this I'm sure about this.
Sorry, but I'm not going to touch the above -- even with
Joel,
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 12:43:16PM -0400, Joel Burton wrote:
> > > Sorry, but since I install all Cygwin packages plus about 30
> > > additional ones I haven't desire to determine what are the
> > > minimal requirements.
>
> If no one else has done this, I'll be happy to dig in and answer
38 matches
Mail list logo
