> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Collins [mailto:robert.collins@itdomain.com.au]
> Sent: 10 May 2002 11:56
> To: Dave Page; jm.poure@freesurf.fr; pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] PostgreSQL windows native port
> available
>
>
> > Installer technologies aside, one of the major reasons for
> > this (and the other discussions on pgsql-hackers) is the wish
> > to 'hide' Cygwin from the PostgreSQL user. We need to make it
> > live in C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL, not have a complete unix
> > style file layout, and generally look like a real Windows
> > application. Cygwin is a great environment for working in and
> > porting software, but now that work is done, PostgreSQL (as
> > an application) should use, and expose the absolute minimum
> > of Cygwin to the user.
>
> You should rebuild cygwin with a different shared memory area
> then, to avoid the -inevitable- shared memory area versioning
> conflicts that will arise. Cygwin1.dll needs to share data
> across process's, and that is done via a named shared memory
> area. If your copy of cygwin1.dll is different to a version
> the user installs elsewhere, you will have trouble (unless
> you've rebuilt cygwin with a different memory area).
>
> I'd suggest that you simply install cygwin in it's usual
> place, and forget about it... Anyway, that's a different
> issue as it is orthogonal to the installer that is used.
To be honest, if I get involved at all it will only be from a packaging
pov - there are others far more qualified than me who are looking at how
exactly the port should be built, ie. Should we change at all, should we
use a cutdown version or the current package (my opinion obviously), or
should we write our own IPC, & fork() etc.
> BTW: Jason Tishler may be interested in what you are doing,
> he maintains the current Cygwin postgreSQL port.
Yes, I exchanged email on the subject with Jason yesterday.
Regards, Dave.
