Thread: pgAdmin3 1.12.2 won't start on WinXP
Hi, I'm traveling so I threw together an XP laptop to allow me to populate some PG tables while on the road. I installed PostgreSQL 8.4.6.1 (to "Program Files\PostgreSQL") and pgAdmin 1.12.2 (to "Program Files\pgAdmin III"). This resulted in two copies of pgAdmin3 being present on the laptop (1.10.5 in ...\PostgreSQL and 1.12.2 in ...\pgAdmin III). As an "unpriveleged user" (Group = "Users"), I was unable to run the *newer* pgAdmin3. However, it appeared that the "original" pgAdmin3 (in ...\PostgreSQL) *did* work properly. [note all of these tests have been simple cursory inspections... just try to connect to the PG server running on the local machine] Invoking the 1.12.2 version resulted in a dialog complaining "This application has failed to start because the application configuration is incorrect..." I spent some time wondering if the problem was related to the "non-Administrator" account. So, I tried both pgAdmin3's from an administrator account and saw the same results! I *tentatively* deduced that the problem was not related to the privilege level of the user running the application. Having saved a snapshot of the system (i.e., complete disk image) *prior* to any applications being installed, I restored that snapshot to try to isolate the problem. [The snapshot represents a "genuine" XP SP2 from the laptop vendor's CD, updates of all drivers from the manufacturer, a local install of SP3 followed by all security and driver updates from MS's "Windows Update" service -- i.e., a "clean", up-to-date XP system. N.B. I can't imagine *anyone* troubleshooting a system without such a snapshot to fall back to!] Then, I installed PostgreSQL (8.4.6.1) with its bundled pgAdmin3 (1.10.5). Next, I installed pgAdmin3 1.12.2 as above. Invoking the 1.12.2 version complained while subsequently invoking the 1.10.5 version did not (i.e., the symptoms remain the same as originally encountered). This suggests that the problem is not consequential to some other application that had been installed prior to the original PostgreSQL and pgAdmin3 applications. Once again, I restored the disk image and installed *just* the 1.12.2 version of pgAdmin3 (again, to "Program Files\pgAdmin III"). I.e., PostgreSQL and the 1.10.5 version of pgAdmin3 are *not* present in this system configuration (so I don't expect to be able to connect to any local server). Invoking this pgAdmin3 (1.12.2) resulted in the same behavior. Having isolated the behavior to the pgAdmin3 1.12.2 version, I compared a fresh download to the image that I have been using for my installs and verified they are in agreement. http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/redir/198/h/pgadmin3/release/v1.12.2/win32/pgadmin3-1.12.2.zip [Hmmm... in retrospect, I guess I could have abbreviated this report to: "1.12.2 complains '... failed to start...' on virgin, up-to-date XP"] I've checked the 1.12 FAQ and known bugs and see no mention of this behavior. And, since I've stripped the environment to the minimum supported above "bare metal", I am clueless as to what else to try. Thanks! --don [Apologies if I am slow to reply as I am traveling and not well-connected]
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Bexley Hall <bexley401@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Invoking the 1.12.2 version resulted in a dialog complaining > "This application has failed to start because the application > configuration is incorrect..." It sounds like you don't have the correct version of the MSVC++ runtimes installed - which is odd, as they're included in the pgAdmin installer. Try reinstalling them: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=9b2da534-3e03-4391-8a4d-074b9f2bc1bf -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Hi Dave, --- On Mon, 1/31/11, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > Bexley Hall <bexley401@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Invoking the 1.12.2 version resulted in a dialog complaining > > "This application has failed to start because the application > > configuration is incorrect..." > > It sounds like you don't have the correct version of the MSVC++ > runtimes installed - which is odd, as they're included in the pgAdmin > installer. Try reinstalling them: > > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=9b2da534-3e03-4391-8a4d-074b9f2bc1bf I searched the "post pgAdmin3" machine image for "mfc90.dll" and didn't find it anywhere. Presumably, 1.10.5 did *not* require this runtime? Installing the above URL resulted in a copy of mfc90.dll turning up under Windows\WinSxS... And, not surprisingly, pgAdmin3 1.12.2 now starts correctly. Are you *sure* the pgAdmin installer is configured to install it? (I don't have the tools with me to examine the .msi itself) Also, the above URL indicates a *newer* version of the runtime is available ("SP1"). Should that, instead, be installed? Thanks for your help! Let me know if there is anything else I can capture from the install process to assist you in chasing this down (hmmm... I should turn on the installer's logging and take a peek at that) --don
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Bexley Hall <bexley401@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Dave, > > --- On Mon, 1/31/11, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > >> Bexley Hall <bexley401@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > Invoking the 1.12.2 version resulted in a dialog complaining >> > "This application has failed to start because the application >> > configuration is incorrect..." >> >> It sounds like you don't have the correct version of the MSVC++ >> runtimes installed - which is odd, as they're included in the pgAdmin >> installer. Try reinstalling them: >> >> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=9b2da534-3e03-4391-8a4d-074b9f2bc1bf > > I searched the "post pgAdmin3" machine image for "mfc90.dll" > and didn't find it anywhere. Presumably, 1.10.5 did *not* > require this runtime? No. It used the VC++ 2005 runtime. > Installing the above URL resulted in a copy of mfc90.dll > turning up under Windows\WinSxS... > > And, not surprisingly, pgAdmin3 1.12.2 now starts correctly. > > Are you *sure* the pgAdmin installer is configured to install it? > (I don't have the tools with me to examine the .msi itself) Positive. See http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgadmin3.git;a=blob;f=pkg/win32/src/pgadmin3.wxs;h=d836c41f8a9f2cd4c8233347250b1dd6fd60574d;hb=6861d498b619b39d0a083da115b8beaf1b771b89, specifically the lines: <Merge Id="CRT" Language="0" SourceFile="$(env.ProgramFiles)\Common Files\Merge Modules\Microsoft_vc90_crt_x86.msm" DiskId="1" /> and <MergeRef Id="CRT" /> -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Hi Dave, --- On Mon, 1/31/11, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > >> It sounds like you don't have the correct version of the MSVC++ > >> runtimes installed - which is odd, as they're included in the pgAdmin > >> installer. Try reinstalling them: > >> > >> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=9b2da534-3e03-4391-8a4d-074b9f2bc1bf > > > > I searched the "post pgAdmin3" machine image for "mfc90.dll" > > and didn't find it anywhere. Presumably, 1.10.5 did *not* > > require this runtime? > > No. It used the VC++ 2005 runtime. OK. > > Installing the above URL resulted in a copy of mfc90.dll > > turning up under Windows\WinSxS... > > > > And, not surprisingly, pgAdmin3 1.12.2 now starts correctly. > > > > Are you *sure* the pgAdmin installer is configured to install it? > > (I don't have the tools with me to examine the .msi itself) > > Positive. See http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=pgadmin3.git;a=blob;f=pkg/win32/src/pgadmin3.wxs;h=d836c41f8a9f2cd4c8233347250b1dd6fd60574d;hb=6861d498b619b39d0a083da115b8beaf1b771b89, > specifically the lines: > > <Merge Id="CRT" Language="0" > SourceFile="$(env.ProgramFiles)\Common > Files\Merge Modules\Microsoft_vc90_crt_x86.msm" DiskId="1" > /> > > and > > <MergeRef Id="CRT" /> <shrug> Dunno. "I don't do windows" :> I re-ran the experiment (pgadmin3 onto "virgin, up-to-date XP install") and still don't see any signs of this package being drawn in. Would you like me to forward the installer's log file to you directly? (too big to post, here -- ~750KB) I'll take a quick glance through it to see if anything obvious turns up but otherwise I'm not qualified to understand what it is (or, in this case, is NOT) doing to comment intelligently. I can likewise forward a (manually authored) log of the steps by which I created the "virgin, up-to-date XP install" so you can see the "updates", etc. that were drawn into it... Thx, --don
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Bexley Hall <bexley401@yahoo.com> wrote: > I re-ran the experiment (pgadmin3 onto "virgin, up-to-date XP > install") and still don't see any signs of this package being > drawn in. Would you like me to forward the installer's > log file to you directly? (too big to post, here -- ~750KB) No need thanks - I ran the same test here, and see it is being installed. The problem appears to be this... The code is built using VC++ 2008 SP1, however, the generated manifest requires the non-SP1 version of the runtimes. As I'm running with SP1, that's the version that is included in the merge module the installer uses. So, there are two issues here which are not as I expect: 1) Why is VC++ 2008 SP1 requiring the use of the pre-SP1 runtimes? 2) I thought that one of the benefits of side by side assemblies was that an executable built using an old version would automatically use a newer version if present. I guess I'm missing something here. More research required... -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Hi Dave, --- On Tue, 2/1/11, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > Bexley Hall <bexley401@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I re-ran the experiment (pgadmin3 onto "virgin, up-to-date XP > > install") and still don't see any signs of this package being > > drawn in. Would you like me to forward the installer's > > log file to you directly? (too big to post, here -- ~750KB) > > No need thanks - I ran the same test here, and see it is > being installed. Wait, it *is* being installed in your case? So, what's the difference between *your* "virgin, up-to-date XP" and *mine*? > The problem appears to be this... > > The code is built using VC++ 2008 SP1, however, the generated manifest > requires the non-SP1 version of the runtimes. As I'm running with SP1, > that's the version that is included in the merge module the installer > uses. So, you *want* and have included the SP1 version in the MSI. Yet the MSI thinks it needs to install the "SP0" version (which is not present in the MSI and, in my case, not present on the machine)? > So, there are two issues here which are not as I expect: > > 1) Why is VC++ 2008 SP1 requiring the use of the pre-SP1 > runtimes? Does it require "SP0" *before* it can install the SP1 (i.e., as a prerequisite)? Or, are you thinking this behavior is "just wrong"? > 2) I thought that one of the benefits of side by side > assemblies was that an executable built using an old version > would automatically use a newer version if present. I guess > I'm missing something here. > > More research required... Let me know if there is anything I can grep from my system to assist. Thanks! --don
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Bexley Hall <bexley401@yahoo.com> wrote: >> The code is built using VC++ 2008 SP1, however, the generated manifest >> requires the non-SP1 version of the runtimes. As I'm running with SP1, >> that's the version that is included in the merge module the installer >> uses. > > So, you *want* and have included the SP1 version in the MSI. > Yet the MSI thinks it needs to install the "SP0" version > (which is not present in the MSI and, in my case, not present > on the machine)? No. I want, and the MSI installs the SP1 version of the runtimes. The compiler is linking the binary against "SP0" though (despite the fact that VC++ claims to be the SP1 version). >> So, there are two issues here which are not as I expect: >> >> 1) Why is VC++ 2008 SP1 requiring the use of the pre-SP1 >> runtimes? > > Does it require "SP0" *before* it can install the SP1 (i.e., > as a prerequisite)? Or, are you thinking this behavior is > "just wrong"? It shouldn't do. If it did, why would the upgrade of Visual Studio to SP1 *replace* the runtime merge module with the SP1 version? >> 2) I thought that one of the benefits of side by side >> assemblies was that an executable built using an old version >> would automatically use a newer version if present. I guess >> I'm missing something here. >> >> More research required... > > Let me know if there is anything I can grep from my system > to assist. I think I just need some time to figure it out at this stage. Time I don't really have right now. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
I have same problem, fresh installation winXp with all updates. Instalation Microsft Visual C++ 2005 SP1 resloved problem and pgadmin start correctly. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/pgAdmin3-1-12-2-won-t-start-on-WinXP-tp3364203p3423018.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - pgadmin support mailing list archive at Nabble.com.