Re: stat() vs cygwin - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Reini Urban |
---|---|
Subject | Re: stat() vs cygwin |
Date | |
Msg-id | 486672FA.1050409@x-ray.at Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: stat() vs cygwin (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander schrieb: > Reini Urban wrote: >> Dave Page schrieb: >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> >>> 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 mostly a >>>> dead platform for postgresql anyway, AFAICS we only keep it building for >>>> legacy compatibility. Once it starts taking lots of resources to keep >>>> building (which it doesn't now), I think we should just drop it >>>> instead... >> "Dead" is interesting. We see a lot of cygwin users having postgresql >> installed. > > 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. > > >>> FWIW, the most recent packages from Cygwin themselves are 8.2.5. >> Update: 8.2.9 is latest. > > Good! > >> 8.3.x not because the new SSPI doesn't work yet. >> >> currently failing is: --with-gssapi --with-krb5 --with-tcl --with-java >> --with-ossp-uuid --with-ldap >> (but ldap works okay with 8.2.9) >> >> currently testing is: --enable-nls --with-CXX --with-openssl --with-perl >> --with-python --with-libxml --with-libxslt >> >> 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 read, and that will just end up being undone by > pgindent at a later date anyway. Sure. This is just the current status of my patch (still from 8.3beta2), nothing to actually submit. > I also notice this in auth.c: > +#ifdef·__CYGWIN__ > +#define·WIN32 > +#endif > > What is the need to change this for just one file? Seems very fragile - > the rest of our codebase assumes WIN32 != CYGWIN, and I think we should > keep that consistent. SSPI has some direct winapi calls to libsecure32 which are simpliest to declare by this cygwin == WIN32 declaration in the backend. For the client libpq this is not so easy, I still have troubles seperating this. > There's also a number of: > -#ifndef·WIN32 > +#if·!defined(WIN32)·||·defined(__CYGWIN__) > > If I read that right, it shouldn't be necessary as long as the WIN32 > define is not set on CYGWIN? This is only for the special case cygwin == WIN32. Just to be sure while testing I wrote it this way. > 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 win32 platform as well... Sure :) This is only vendor private. -- Reini
pgsql-hackers by date: