[HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-04-11 Thread Magnus Hagander
It seems my fix for stat() broke cygwin, because it doesn't have dosmaperr() available. The way I see it there are two ways to fix this: 1) Don't apply the stat fix for cygwin. 2) Make our dosmaperr() function be used on cygwin. I don't know if the fix is actually needed on cygwin. Can someone

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-12-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
Where are we on this? The patch was not acceptable for several reasons; for one: > And finally: > -VALUE?"OriginalFilename",?"libpq.dll\0" > +VALUE?"OriginalFilename",?"cygpq.dll\0" > > This obviously has to be done another way, because that change will > affect the win3

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-12-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
If we have no plan to apply this patch, do we need to remove Cygwin as a supported platform? --- Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Where are we on this? The patch was not acceptable for several reasons; > for one: > > > And finall

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-12-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
I'm confused. There is a Cygwin member of buildfarm, working quite happily. Can you point me to the exact patch in question, please? I thought we resolved the matter of stat() ages ago. cheers andrew Bruce Momjian wrote: If we have no plan to apply this patch, do we need to remove Cygwin a

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-12-18 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > I'm confused. There is a Cygwin member of buildfarm, working quite > happily. Can you point me to the exact patch in question, please? I > thought we resolved the matter of stat() ages ago. http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4865F707.6010702%40x-ray.at -- Alv

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-12-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: I'm confused. There is a Cygwin member of buildfarm, working quite happily. Can you point me to the exact patch in question, please? I thought we resolved the matter of stat() ages ago. http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4865F707.

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-12-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > >> I'm confused. There is a Cygwin member of buildfarm, working quite > >> happily. Can you point me to the exact patch in question, please? I > >> thought we resolved the matter of stat() ages ago. > >>

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-12-19 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Bruce Momjian wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: I'm confused. There is a Cygwin member of buildfarm, working quite happily. Can you point me to the exact patch in question, please? I thought we resolved the matter of stat() ages ago

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2009-01-06 Thread Bruce Momjian
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> > >>> Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >>> > >>> > I'm confused. There is a Cygwin member of buildfarm, working quite > happily. Can you point me to the exact patch

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
Magnus, was this fixed/resolved? --- Magnus Hagander wrote: > It seems my fix for stat() broke cygwin, because it doesn't have > dosmaperr() available. The way I see it there are two ways to fix this: > > 1) Don't apply the

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-24 Thread Magnus Hagander
Yes. As in the cygwin build does build. Nobody really has verified if the fix is needed there. But frankly, if you are likely to care about the effects of this issue, you won't be running cygwin anyway. It's mostly a dead platform for postgresql anyway, AFAICS we only keep it building for legacy c

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-24 Thread Dave Page
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes. > > As in the cygwin build does build. Nobody really has verified if the fix > is needed there. But frankly, if you are likely to care about the > effects of this issue, you won't be running cygwin anyway. It's mostl

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-24 Thread Kenneth Marshall
One motivation for keeping it working on Cygwin, is that in some environments it is not allowed to install native Windows apps but they allow the use of the Cygwin environment. Of course if it takes too many resources to support, then dropping support would be an option. I would check this for you,

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-24 Thread Magnus Hagander
Kenneth Marshall wrote: > One motivation for keeping it working on Cygwin, is that in some > environments it is not allowed to install native Windows apps but > they allow the use of the Cygwin environment. Of course if it takes > too many resources to support, then dropping support would be an > o

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-24 Thread Kenneth Marshall
The case I am referring to has a "developer" clause that allows Cygwin applications to be used for development only. I agree that the policy is odd. Ken On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 02:35:50PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Kenneth Marshall wrote: > > One motivation for keeping it working on Cygwin,

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-24 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: Kenneth Marshall wrote: One motivation for keeping it working on Cygwin, is that in some environments it is not allowed to install native Windows apps but they allow the use of the Cygwin environment. Of course if it takes too many resources to support, then dropping

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-24 Thread Magnus Hagander
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Kenneth Marshall wrote: >> >>> One motivation for keeping it working on Cygwin, is that in some >>> environments it is not allowed to install native Windows apps but >>> they allow the use of the Cygwin environment. Of course if it takes >>>

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-24 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: More to the point: I thought this had been tested. I will test it today so we can put this whole thread to rest. IIRC it was only tested insofar that it doesn't actually break. Not if it returns proper results. I have tested it using the suggested script (corr

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-28 Thread Reini Urban
Dave Page schrieb: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes. As in the cygwin build does build. Nobody really has verified if the fix is needed there. But frankly, if you are likely to care about the effects of this issue, you won't be running cygwin anywa

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-28 Thread Magnus Hagander
Reini Urban wrote: > Dave Page schrieb: >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> Yes. >>> >>> As in the cygwin build does build. Nobody really has verified if the fix >>> is needed there. But frankly, if you are likely to care about the >>> effects of th

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-28 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Magnus Hagander wrote: > > 8.3.x not because the new SSPI doesn't work yet. > > current cygwin patch in testing is attached. > > I assume this is a WIP and not actually for application, right? Please > look it over because it contains a number of pure-whitespace changes > that make it harder to

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-28 Thread Reini Urban
Magnus Hagander schrieb: Reini Urban wrote: Dave Page schrieb: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes. As in the cygwin build does build. Nobody really has verified if the fix is needed there. But frankly, if you are likely to care about the effects of

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-28 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: Heh. Maybe not dead, but certainly not really alive either ;-) Given the evidence in your patch that clearly 8.3 isn't quite up to speed on cygwin, and nobody has really noticed until now. AIUI, only the gssapi stuff is broken. Most users are not likely to want it o

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-06-28 Thread Reini Urban
Andrew Dunstan schrieb: Magnus Hagander wrote: Heh. Maybe not dead, but certainly not really alive either ;-) Given the evidence in your patch that clearly 8.3 isn't quite up to speed on cygwin, and nobody has really noticed until now. AIUI, only the gssapi stuff is broken. Most users are n

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-08-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
Where are we on this patch? --- Reini Urban wrote: > Dave Page schrieb: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Yes. > >> > >> As in the cygwin build does build. Nobody really has

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2008-04-11 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems my fix for stat() broke cygwin, because it doesn't have > dosmaperr() available. Are you sure you aren't just missing an #include? The other places where we call _dosmaperr don't seem to be protected by anything more than #ifdef WIN32.

Re: [HACKERS] stat() vs cygwin

2009-06-28 Thread Reini Urban
Bruce Momjian schrieb: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: I'm confused. There is a Cygwin member of buildfarm, working quite happily. Can you point me to the exact patch in question, please? I tho