[HACKERS] LIBPQ on Windows and large Queries
Hello all, Is anybody trying to solve the 8191 bytes query limit from libpq windows port ??? We've discussed this topic on "Large queries - again" thread and it seems like nobody got interested on fixing it. All Windows applications that rely on libpq are broken because of this issue (ODBC applications are fine btw). I can also do any kind of testing under Windows (and actually I'll do it anyway). I wonder if this limitation also applies to the unix libpq library ??? Jan, Tom, Bruce - any news on this ? Best Regards, Steve Howe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] LIBPQ on Windows and large Queries
"Steve Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is anybody trying to solve the 8191 bytes query limit from libpq > windows port ??? I think it's *your* responsibility, at least to identify what's going on. This is an open source project, and that means you can and should fix problems that affect you. FWIW, if the problem is real (which I still misdoubt), it seems like it would have to be related to needing to flush multiple output bufferloads during a single PQsendQuery. This works just fine on everything but Windows --- why would it fail there? And why would no one but you have complained of it before? I have no ideas. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] LIBPQ on Windows and large Queries
At 01:36 27.07.2001 -0400, you wrote: >"Steve Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is anybody trying to solve the 8191 bytes query limit from libpq > > windows port ??? > >I think it's *your* responsibility, at least to identify what's going >on. This is an open source project, and that means you can and should >fix problems that affect you. > >FWIW, if the problem is real (which I still misdoubt), it seems like >it would have to be related to needing to flush multiple output >bufferloads during a single PQsendQuery. This works just fine on >everything but Windows --- why would it fail there? And why would >no one but you have complained of it before? I have no ideas. [...] To go on about this, I use psql 7.1.2 for toying around on Win2K, and have not had this problem. I just evaluated using TOASTED blobs (written in a text column as base64 encoded). I did use the cygwin libpq though. Probably I'll get around compiling native libpq and try that with my test cases. Greetings, Joerg ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] LIBPQ on Windows and large Queries
Tom Lane wrote: > > "Steve Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is anybody trying to solve the 8191 bytes query limit from libpq > > windows port ??? > > FWIW, if the problem is real (which I still misdoubt), Yes it's real. Error handling seems the cause. When "Error: pqReadData() -- read() failed: errno=0 No error" occurs WSAGetLastError() returns WSAEWOULDBLOCK. If EWOULDBLOCK exists and errno == EWOULDBLOCK, pqReadData() returns 0 or 1 not -1. I added the code errno = WSAGetLastError(); and #define EWOULDBLOCK WSAEWOULDBLOCK. After that I encountered another error "pqFlush() -- couldn't send data: errno=0". Then WSAGetLastError() also returns WSAEWOULDBLOCK. After adding *errno = WSAGetLastError();* the insertion was successful. regards, Hiroshi Inoue ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] LIBPQ on Windows and large Queries
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes it's real. > Error handling seems the cause. Hmm, are you working with CVS tip or 7.1.* sources? I'm wondering how this interacts with the recent patch to #define errno as WSAGetLastError() on WIN32... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
Re: [HACKERS] LIBPQ on Windows and large Queries
Tom Lane wrote: > > Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Yes it's real. > > Error handling seems the cause. > > Hmm, are you working with CVS tip or 7.1.* sources? I'm wondering > how this interacts with the recent patch to #define errno as > WSAGetLastError() on WIN32... > Oops sorry, I could have no cvs access for 3 weeks. Well haven't this problem solved already ? regards, Hiroshi Inoue ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
Re: [HACKERS] LIBPQ on Windows and large Queries
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well haven't this problem solved already ? I'm not sure. Steve, have you tried current sources? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [HACKERS] LIBPQ on Windows and large Queries
I'm surprised you are even able to run postgres in windows. I didn't even know postgres supported windows. Could you kindly point me to instructions on how to run it and build the postgres souce on windows? If nobody will try to fix it, then maybe we should just try it ourseleves and post some patch to it. -Original Message- From: Steve Howe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [HACKERS] LIBPQ on Windows and large Queries Hello all, Is anybody trying to solve the 8191 bytes query limit from libpq windows port ??? We've discussed this topic on "Large queries - again" thread and it seems like nobody got interested on fixing it. All Windows applications that rely on libpq are broken because of this issue (ODBC applications are fine btw). I can also do any kind of testing under Windows (and actually I'll do it anyway). I wonder if this limitation also applies to the unix libpq library ??? Jan, Tom, Bruce - any news on this ? Best Regards, Steve Howe ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] LIBPQ on Windows and large Queries
Hello all, I was in a trip and just arrived, and will do it real soon. Best Regards, Steve Howe - Original Message - From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Steve Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [HACKERS] LIBPQ on Windows and large Queries > Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well haven't this problem solved already ? > > I'm not sure. Steve, have you tried current sources? > > regards, tom lane > ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
