Thread: Anyone doing a native NT port?
Hello, My company is pretty impressed with postgre on unix, but we also need a native port for nt (it is not an option to have our customers install cygwin on their production systems.) Ideally we would like to see the backend running as a native service under nt. We have the resources to do the port ourselves (I will probably end up doing the work myself), but I was wondering if there was already an effort underway to develop something like this. Dave Heinecke Senior Software Engineer Axent Technologies
David, We could definately use this as we have very similar problems. We would love to be able to support Win 9x as well. If you decide to do this then I will provide from our company least some time by one or two people to test and help in non coding ways (we have no c skills). Regards Dave David Heinecke wrote: > > Hello, > > My company is pretty impressed with postgre on unix, but we also need a > native port for nt (it is not an option to have our customers install cygwin > on their production systems.) Ideally we would like to see the backend > running as a native service under nt. We have the resources to do the port > ourselves (I will probably end up doing the work myself), but I was > wondering if there was already an effort underway to develop something like > this. -- David Warnock Sundayta Ltd
> Hello, > > My company is pretty impressed with postgre on unix, but we also need a > native port for nt (it is not an option to have our customers install cygwin > on their production systems.) Ideally we would like to see the backend > running as a native service under nt. We have the resources to do the port > ourselves (I will probably end up doing the work myself), but I was > wondering if there was already an effort underway to develop something like > this. Yikes, you want to run the PostgreSQL backend without Unix simulator support! Wow, that sounds like a big job. I know of no one who has done this. You can see from the FAQ item that people have running under U/Win too, but I that is a Unix emulator too. Seems like you would basically be writing another emulator for NT to do the things we do under Unix, no? -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
> David, > > We could definately use this as we have very similar problems. We would > love to be able to support Win 9x as well. > > If you decide to do this then I will provide from our company least some > time by one or two people to test and help in non coding ways (we have > no c skills). Let me just through up a red flag on this. PostgreSQL uses more Unix services that most software, and is almost the size/complexity of many Unix kernels. This is not going to be easy to do. CygWin works because it is emulating the Unix things we need on NT. To do a native port, you would have to translate all our unix service calls to NT-style library calls. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In message <8A34CE6287D8D211AB0600A0C9D182235D2AB2@raven.rockville.axent.com>yo
u write:
>Hello,
>
>My company is pretty impressed with postgre on unix, but we also need a
>native port for nt (it is not an option to have our customers install cygwin
>on their production systems.) Ideally we would like to see the backend
>running as a native service under nt. We have the resources to do the port
>ourselves (I will probably end up doing the work myself), but I was
>wondering if there was already an effort underway to develop something like
>this.
>
>Dave Heinecke
>Senior Software Engineer
>Axent Technologies
>
>************
>
Don't know if this helps, but I pretty well have an install procedure
that installs a Postgres 6.5.1 binary tree with enough of cygwin to
make it work, so the user never has to go get cygwin or compile
Postgres. It's very basic, no spiffy GUI, it just asks several
questions and goes to work...
I have also been able to install it as a service, though I have not integrated
that part with my install.
Ted Nolan
Bruce,
As I am not going to be able to help on the coding I won't try to
comment on it's dificulty.
But I will ask what realistic expectations are for the current NT port
using cgywin. My current concern is that the installation is very
complex and the useability is poor due to the need to enter a cgywin
shell to access any of the postgresql features.
So
a) Is it going to be possible using cgywin to build binaries
(postmaster, createdb, psql etc) that can be run from a standard windows
NT command prompt? Or will a cgywin shell always be needed? If this can
be done then so that we can provide an installation of binaries with no
unix shell visible then we can probably get this accepted by our users.
b) Is it possible to add support for Windows 9x? If so it anyone working
on this? (NB I am not considering this as a server platform but for a
single user system to avoid us supporting multiple dbms) [anyway I don't
know of an alternative to Postgresql that has the same feature set - I
need most postgresql features {license and technical}].
> Let me just through up a red flag on this. PostgreSQL uses more Unix
> services that most software, and is almost the size/complexity of many
> Unix kernels.
>
> This is not going to be easy to do. CygWin works because it is
> emulating the Unix things we need on NT. To do a native port, you would
> have to translate all our unix service calls to NT-style library calls.
Dave
--
David Warnock
Sundayta Ltd
David Heinecke schrieb: > > Hello, > > My company is pretty impressed with postgre on unix, but we also need a > native port for nt (it is not an option to have our customers install cygwin > on their production systems.) Ideally we would like to see the backend > running as a native service under nt. We have the resources to do the port > ourselves (I will probably end up doing the work myself), but I was > wondering if there was already an effort underway to develop something like > this. Is it really a problem to install the required cygwin components? Certainly not the complete cygwin package is required to run the PorsgreSQL deamon. I think the cygwinxxx.DLL is the myjor part of the files required. You should try to install it withoud the complete cygwin package. Elmar
> Bruce,
>
> As I am not going to be able to help on the coding I won't try to
> comment on it's dificulty.
>
> But I will ask what realistic expectations are for the current NT port
> using cgywin. My current concern is that the installation is very
> complex and the useability is poor due to the need to enter a cgywin
> shell to access any of the postgresql features.
>
> So
>
> a) Is it going to be possible using cgywin to build binaries
> (postmaster, createdb, psql etc) that can be run from a standard windows
> NT command prompt? Or will a cgywin shell always be needed? If this can
> be done then so that we can provide an installation of binaries with no
> unix shell visible then we can probably get this accepted by our users.
>
> b) Is it possible to add support for Windows 9x? If so it anyone working
> on this? (NB I am not considering this as a server platform but for a
> single user system to avoid us supporting multiple dbms) [anyway I don't
> know of an alternative to Postgresql that has the same feature set - I
> need most postgresql features {license and technical}].
Sorry, I don't know the answers to these questions because I don't use
NT, but I will say this. Fixing the above problems is going to be 99
times easier than porting PostgreSQL to native NT without cygwin.
Basically, you will have to write cygwin, and that is no trivial task.
The above items can probably be done using tcl/tk for a user interface,
and having the cygwin shell do the actual execution. Again, 99 times
easier to do than the port to native NT.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, David Warnock wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> As I am not going to be able to help on the coding I won't try to
> comment on it's dificulty.
>
> But I will ask what realistic expectations are for the current NT port
> using cgywin. My current concern is that the installation is very
> complex and the useability is poor due to the need to enter a cgywin
> shell to access any of the postgresql features.
You don't necessarily need to use the cygwin shell. At work, I have a pair
of utilities that are run by every user as they log on. All these tools
need is one of the dlls (in my case cygwin1.dll) in the same directory as
the tool and it works fine.
PS: There has been in the last few days on the cygwin list some discussion
about the copying of just the dll's with an application. It might be worth
you check their archives.
> a) Is it going to be possible using cgywin to build binaries
> (postmaster, createdb, psql etc) that can be run from a standard windows
> NT command prompt? Or will a cgywin shell always be needed? If this can
> be done then so that we can provide an installation of binaries with no
> unix shell visible then we can probably get this accepted by our users.
See above. Yes, as I've done it.
PS: About 6 months ago (may be longer, I can't remember) for the TASS
project I compiled a standalone psql.exe (aka a Win32 version of the psql
client). Several people found it useful, and they only needed the exe and
the dll.
> b) Is it possible to add support for Windows 9x? If so it anyone working
> on this? (NB I am not considering this as a server platform but for a
> single user system to avoid us supporting multiple dbms) [anyway I don't
> know of an alternative to Postgresql that has the same feature set - I
> need most postgresql features {license and technical}].
I'm not sure why the NT version is only NT specific, as Cygwin runs on
Win95 and 98. Does our NT port use any NT services?
Peter
--
Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Faq: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres
Java PDF Generator: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf
In message <199909271817.OAA10269@candle.pha.pa.us>you write:
>> Bruce,
>>
>> As I am not going to be able to help on the coding I won't try to
>> comment on it's dificulty.
>>
>> But I will ask what realistic expectations are for the current NT port
>> using cgywin. My current concern is that the installation is very
>> complex and the useability is poor due to the need to enter a cgywin
>> shell to access any of the postgresql features.
>>
>> So
>>
>> a) Is it going to be possible using cgywin to build binaries
>> (postmaster, createdb, psql etc) that can be run from a standard windows
>> NT command prompt? Or will a cgywin shell always be needed? If this can
>> be done then so that we can provide an installation of binaries with no
>> unix shell visible then we can probably get this accepted by our users.
>>
>> b) Is it possible to add support for Windows 9x? If so it anyone working
>> on this? (NB I am not considering this as a server platform but for a
>> single user system to avoid us supporting multiple dbms) [anyway I don't
>> know of an alternative to Postgresql that has the same feature set - I
>> need most postgresql features {license and technical}].
>
>Sorry, I don't know the answers to these questions because I don't use
>NT, but I will say this. Fixing the above problems is going to be 99
>times easier than porting PostgreSQL to native NT without cygwin.
>Basically, you will have to write cygwin, and that is no trivial task.
>
>The above items can probably be done using tcl/tk for a user interface,
>and having the cygwin shell do the actual execution. Again, 99 times
>easier to do than the port to native NT.
>
>--
> Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
> maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
OK, I've just put the 6.5.1 install for NT that I mentioned a few
messages ago up for FTP at ftp.erg.sri.com in
/pub/people/ted/pg_inst.zip. This is part of a larger project I'm
working on and I have absolutely no time to support or debug it. (And
have never done it from a ZIP before, but that should be OK..) If it
works for you -- great! If not, I'd like to hear what went wrong, but
I probably won't be able to help you much. The key thing, per this
discussion, is that the user doesn't need to get or interact directly
with cygwin.
Unzip it and double click on "inst_pg.bat". Hopefully this will start an
install process. After this finishes, double click on "startdb.bat"
in the directory where you told it to install, minimize that, then double
click on "nw_psql.bat" (You could wrap other PGSQL commands as bat files
also).
When done, double click on "stopdb.bat" to kill the postmaster & ipc-daemon.
This install does not install PG as a service. I've done that with seeming
success, but it didn't make it into the install...
Also, as you've seen, I still have some concerns about the ipc-daemon
gradually becomming a CPU hog..
Ted Nolan
Peter Mount wrote:
>
> PS: About 6 months ago (may be longer, I can't remember) for the TASS
> project I compiled a standalone psql.exe (aka a Win32 version of the
> psql client). Several people found it useful, and they only needed the
> exe and the dll.
sorry for branching the thread but I'm after a Win32 port of psql.exe
and libpq.dll based on the 6.3.2 version of postgresql; can someone
please point me to it?
btw: the one available from ftp.postgresql.org/pub/non-unix is based on
postgresql 6.4.2;
TIA!
--
Otavio Exel /<\oo/>\ oexel@economatica.com.br
Ted, Many thanks with this. I am about to travel quite a bit, I will try this when I get back. Dave -- David Warnock Sundayta Ltd
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, David Warnock wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> As I am not going to be able to help on the coding I won't try to
> comment on it's dificulty.
>
> But I will ask what realistic expectations are for the current NT port
> using cgywin. My current concern is that the installation is very
> complex and the useability is poor due to the need to enter a cgywin
> shell to access any of the postgresql features.
>
> So
>
> a) Is it going to be possible using cgywin to build binaries
> (postmaster, createdb, psql etc) that can be run from a standard windows
> NT command prompt? Or will a cgywin shell always be needed? If this can
> be done then so that we can provide an installation of binaries with no
> unix shell visible then we can probably get this accepted by our users.
pgAdmin should provide you with this, no?
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
You do NOT have to run a cygwin shell to run binaries built under cygwin.
I use cygwin to build .exe and .dll files that run from an NT/DOS prompt and
from PERL scripts running as CGI.
The only requirement is that the primary cygwin.dll be in the NT path
somewhere.
I even run vi under NT;-))
Cheers,
Stephen.
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, David Warnock wrote:
>
> > Bruce,
> >
> > As I am not going to be able to help on the coding I won't try to
> > comment on it's dificulty.
> >
> > But I will ask what realistic expectations are for the current NT port
> > using cgywin. My current concern is that the installation is very
> > complex and the useability is poor due to the need to enter a cgywin
> > shell to access any of the postgresql features.
> >
> > So
> >
> > a) Is it going to be possible using cgywin to build binaries
> > (postmaster, createdb, psql etc) that can be run from a standard windows
> > NT command prompt? Or will a cgywin shell always be needed? If this can
> > be done then so that we can provide an installation of binaries with no
> > unix shell visible then we can probably get this accepted by our users.
>
> pgAdmin should provide you with this, no?
>
> Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
> Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
>
>
> ************
--
========================================================================
Stephen Davies Consulting scldad@sdc.com.au
Adelaide, South Australia. Voice: 08-8177 1595
Computing & Network solutions. Fax: 08-8177 0133