Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] [Fwd: RE: Build farm on Windows] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] [Fwd: RE: Build farm on Windows]
Date
Msg-id 44CAC579.5070602@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] [Fwd: RE: Build farm on Windows]  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [Pgbuildfarm-members] [Fwd: RE: Build farm on Windows]  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> writes:
>   
>> WARNING:  could not read time zone file
>> "/home/pgbuild/devel/pginst/share/postgresql/timezonesets/Default": No
>> such file or directory
>>     
>
>   
>> so it's there but as a msys-virtual path - is that get passed to some
>> win32 function expecting a windows-style path ?
>>     
>
> Doh, I see what's the problem: we calculate the sharedir path using
> my_exec_path, and falling back to the hardwired PGSHAREDIR path if
> my_exec_path isn't correct.  The problem is that in a Windows
> subprocess, my_exec_path isn't correct until read_backend_variables
> has been done, and *that happens after InitializeGUCOptions* in
> SubPostmasterMain().  So we're trying to set up the tz name data
> before we have the path we need.
>   

Is there a reason we have to do things in this order? Could we just 
postpone the call to InitializeGUCOptions() for a couple of lines?

If not, then ...
> The reason I didn't notice this in testing with EXEC_BACKEND is that
> I wasn't testing in a relocated installation, and so the fallback
> get_share_path calculation got the right answer anyway.
>
> Not sure about a clean fix.  Probably we'll have to do something
> similar to the way TimeZone is handled, where we don't try to read
> in the data until later on in the initialization sequence.
>
>
>   

I guess we'd need to set a flag that would postpone reading the data 
just during the startup phase, but have it called immediately in all 
other cases.

cheers

andrew



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: The vacuum-ignore-vacuum patch