OP here....
We removed AVG from the computer and rebooted.
Same problem.
We are quite certain that AVG is no longer installed. It doesn't show up where it used to, and a search of the registry
for"AVG" finds a couple leftovers but doesn't seem to indicate that it's still installed.
The computer is running Windows 2000 Server, SP4. Build 5.00.2195. It's a Pentium (R) 4 CPU 2.80 GHz, AT/AT
Compatible,1 GB memory.
That's not a particularly powerful computer, but so far we're only testing the application. Someone asked about load,
someonealso mentioned that mixing file serving and database serving is not good in general. Since we're only testing
rightnow and in fact don't expect much load when in production, those probably aren't issues.
Anyway, it now looks like the problem is not caused by AV software.
Could it be 2000 Server? SP4? I've seen reports of other problems that went away depending on the version of Windows.
Thanks.
John
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:35:33 +0200, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
>Magnus Hagander, 07.06.2010 16:15:
>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 15:58, Thomas Kellerer<spam_eater@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> Magnus Hagander, 07.06.2010 15:52:
>>>>>
>>>>> Some AV software probably behaves fine.
>>>>
>>>> Probably.
>>>
>>> In case anyone is interested:
>>>
>>> I have two development computers that run Postgres on Windows XP.
>>> One with Avira the other with Sophos.
>>>
>>> Neither has or had any problems installing or running Postgres
>>
>> What kind of load do the systems have? Particularly, how many
>> parallell connections? That seems to push things over the edge more
>> often than high transaction single-user ones.
>>
>
>Ah, that might make the difference:
>I have no real load on those computers (as I said, developer machine)
>
>So it's more a single-user type of load
>
>Regards
>Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
>To make changes to your subscription:
>http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
