Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-02-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 02/01/2014 05:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: On 02/01/2014 05:12 PM, Marco Atzeri wrote: is it possible the tsearch test never worked on en_US.utf8 but only on C locale ? Yes, that's more or less what I said, I thought. Maybe we need to test this on other Windows systems in

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-02-01 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > On 02/01/2014 05:12 PM, Marco Atzeri wrote: >> is it possible the tsearch test never worked on en_US.utf8 >> but only on C locale ? > Yes, that's more or less what I said, I thought. > Maybe we need to test this on other Windows systems in non-C encodings. > Let's make

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-02-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 02/01/2014 05:12 PM, Marco Atzeri wrote: On 01/02/2014 22:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 01/25/2014 01:23 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: * isolation tests fail with an indefinite hang on newer Cygwin * prepared_xacts test fails with an indefinite hang on newer Cygwin if run in parall

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-02-01 Thread Marco Atzeri
On 01/02/2014 22:57, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 01/25/2014 01:23 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: * isolation tests fail with an indefinite hang on newer Cygwin * prepared_xacts test fails with an indefinite hang on newer Cygwin if run in parallel with other tests * tsearch tests fail o

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-02-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/25/2014 01:23 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: I have now tested the central part of the proposed changes on both old and new Cygwin installations, and they appear to work. I'm going to commit them and backpatch back to 9.0, which is where we currently have buildfarm coverage (and 8.4 will

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-01-25 Thread Marco Atzeri
On 25/01/2014 22:42, Marco Atzeri wrote: On 25/01/2014 19:23, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 01/24/2014 07:50 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote: * LDAP libraries - the way you have proposed surely isn't right. What we want is something more like this in the Makefile.global.in: ifeq ($(PORTNAME

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-01-25 Thread Marco Atzeri
On 25/01/2014 19:23, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 01/24/2014 07:50 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote: Those two issues need to be fixed. And yes, they are regressions from my Cygwin 1.7.7 setup where they pass consistently, just about every day. See

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-01-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/24/2014 07:50 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote: Those two issues need to be fixed. And yes, they are regressions from my Cygwin 1.7.7 setup where they pass consistently, just about every day. See 1.7.7 is 3.5 years hold. In

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-01-24 Thread Marco Atzeri
On 24/01/2014 12:56, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 01/24/2014 01:20 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote: AFAICT the regression is in Cygwin. The buildfarm passes because it's using an oldish Cygwin release, 1.7.7 rather than the current 1.7.27. I have brought the regression the athe attention of the Cygwin p

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-01-24 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/24/2014 01:20 AM, Marco Atzeri wrote: AFAICT the regression is in Cygwin. The buildfarm passes because it's using an oldish Cygwin release, 1.7.7 rather than the current 1.7.27. I have brought the regression the athe attention of the Cygwin people in the past, but without response. whi

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-01-23 Thread Marco Atzeri
On 24/01/2014 05:28, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 01/23/2014 10:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:48:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian writes: Andrew, should this configuration/code patch be applied to 9.4? http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51b59794.3000...@gm

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-01-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 01/23/2014 10:50 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:48:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian writes: Andrew, should this configuration/code patch be applied to 9.4? http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51b59794.3000...@gmail.com I think we would have to make Cy

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-01-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:48:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Andrew, should this configuration/code patch be applied to 9.4? > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51b59794.3000...@gmail.com > > > I think we would have to make Cygwin-specific regression output to

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-01-23 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > Andrew, should this configuration/code patch be applied to 9.4? > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51b59794.3000...@gmail.com > I think we would have to make Cygwin-specific regression output to > handle the regression failures, but frankly I am not even sure if

Re: [HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2014-01-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:08:36AM +0200, marco atzeri wrote: > Il 3/6/2013 11:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan ha scritto: > > > >Excellent. Will test it out soon. > > > >cheers > > > >andrew > > > > Andrew, > please find attached a full patch for cygwin relative to 9.3beta1 : > > - DLLTOLL/DLLWRAP are not

[HACKERS] Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd

2013-06-10 Thread marco atzeri
Il 3/6/2013 11:46 PM, Andrew Dunstan ha scritto: Excellent. Will test it out soon. cheers andrew Andrew, please find attached a full patch for cygwin relative to 9.3beta1 : - DLLTOLL/DLLWRAP are not used anymore, replaced by gcc also for postgres.exe (*) - DLL versioning is added Check