Thread: RE: [PATCH]: Building PostgreSQL 7.0.2 on Cygwin 1.1.4 (T ake 2)
Stupid question, but why not? If someone is going to install the latest and greatest version of PostgreSQL why would it be unreasonable to expect them to install the latest and greatest Cygwin also? As a comparative example, I don't think it's unreasonable for major Linux distributions to require the presence of GLIBC as opposed to the old crustly libc v5.x. And, I don't think it's unreasonable for Microsoft to require the latest updates to their shared libraries for use with Office 2000. What am I missing here? Maybe I'm incorrectly equating the cygwin dll with a library, but that's certainly my understanding. Now if someone is using their PostgreSQL box as a development box then I would assume that they would be using development versions. I don't think many people are using PostgreSQL in a production environment and also using that same production environment for cygwin development. IOW, I would hope that "production" use of PostgreSQL was done on a "production" box and that only the cygwin dll was necessary and not the whole cygwin programming environment. In that case, I don't see what would be the big deal with requiring/providing a newer version of cygwin and "breaking" compatability with old versions. Someone set me straight please ;-) Fred Reimer Eclipsys Corporation -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-ports-owner@hub.org [mailto:pgsql-ports-owner@hub.org]On Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1:13 PM To: Jason Tishler Cc: Bruce Momjian; Cygwin; pgsql-ports@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PORTS] [PATCH]: Building PostgreSQL 7.0.2 on Cygwin 1.1.4 (Take 2) Jason Tishler writes: > I was under the impression that my patch was being hand merged into the > CVS since the tree has changed since 7.0.2. I was under the impression that part of your patch was going to abandon compatibility with Cygwin 1.0 and B20. We can't do that. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
Fred, On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 01:23:38PM -0400, Reimer, Fred wrote: > Stupid question, but why not? If someone is going to install the latest and > greatest version of PostgreSQL why would it be unreasonable to expect them > to install the latest and greatest Cygwin also? I feel likewise but I do not have a (large) base of users/systems that are running Cygwin 1.0 or b20. Those who do will most likely feel otherwise. > I would hope > that "production" use of PostgreSQL was done on a "production" box and that > only the cygwin dll was necessary and not the whole cygwin programming > environment. You are correct, only the Cygwin DLL is needed. > In that case, I don't see what would be the big deal with > requiring/providing a newer version of cygwin and "breaking" compatability > with old versions. Unfortunately, two different version of the Cygwin DLL can not coexist on the same system. So, if some app needs the b20 DLL and PostgreSQL needs the 1.1.4 DLL you are SOL. Jason -- Jason Tishler Director, Software Engineering Phone: +1 (732) 264-8770 x235 Dot Hill Systems Corporation Fax: +1 (732) 264-8798 82 Bethany Road, Suite 7 Email: Jason.Tishler@dothill.com Hazlet, NJ 07730 USA WWW: http://www.dothill.com
Jason Tishler writes: > Unfortunately, two different version of the Cygwin DLL can not > coexist on the same system. So, if some app needs the b20 DLL and > PostgreSQL needs the 1.1.4 DLL you are SOL. Why so? I have both B20.1 and 1.1.4 on my system at the moment. PATH determines which is used by any particular app. And as Earnie says, the 1.1.4 DLL should be good for older apps. -- Pete Forman -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated Western Geophysical -./\.- by myself and does not represent pete.forman@westgeo.com -./\.- the opinion of Baker Hughes or http://www.crosswinds.net/~petef -./\.- its divisions.
Peter, On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 08:07:39AM +0100, Pete Forman wrote: > Jason Tishler writes: > > Unfortunately, two different version of the Cygwin DLL can not > > coexist on the same system. So, if some app needs the b20 DLL and > > PostgreSQL needs the 1.1.4 DLL you are SOL. > > Why so? I have both B20.1 and 1.1.4 on my system at the moment. PATH > determines which is used by any particular app. And as Earnie says, > the 1.1.4 DLL should be good for older apps. I was wrong. I thought that b20.1 used cygwin.dll not cygwin1.dll -- it's been a while since I used b20.1. I'm very glad to hear that older apps can use the 1.1.4 DLL too. BTW since you have b20.1, would you be willing to build and test my patched version of PostgreSQL 7.0.2? Thanks, Jason P.S. Thanks to Earnie for setting me straight. -- Jason Tishler Director, Software Engineering Phone: +1 (732) 264-8770 x235 Dot Hill Systems Corporation Fax: +1 (732) 264-8798 82 Bethany Road, Suite 7 Email: Jason.Tishler@dothill.com Hazlet, NJ 07730 USA WWW: http://www.dothill.com
Jason Tishler writes: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 08:07:39AM +0100, Pete Forman wrote: > > Jason Tishler writes: > > > Unfortunately, two different version of the Cygwin DLL can not > > > coexist on the same system. So, if some app needs the b20 DLL and > > > PostgreSQL needs the 1.1.4 DLL you are SOL. > > > > Why so? I have both B20.1 and 1.1.4 on my system at the moment. PATH > > determines which is used by any particular app. And as Earnie says, > > the 1.1.4 DLL should be good for older apps. > > I was wrong. I thought that b20.1 used cygwin.dll not cygwin1.dll -- > it's been a while since I used b20.1. I'm very glad to hear that older > apps can use the 1.1.4 DLL too. > > BTW since you have b20.1, would you be willing to build and test my > patched version of PostgreSQL 7.0.2? That test is now done. The only tests that fail are those involving timezones. The build and test was not that smooth. Overall I'd recommend upgrading to Cygwin 1.1.4 or later rather than applying all the fixes needed for B20.1. I revised Jason's patches for two of the files. My attached patch is against the original 7.0.2 code. Jason's patch should be edited to remove the sections for backend/utils/error/elog.c and exc.c. His patch was posted to PORTS on Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:21:46 -0400. This patch is for 7.0.2. I am sending a patch to do the same thing for 7.1 to the PATCHES mailing list. It works around the lack of sys_nerr on Cygwin B20.1 and BeOS. More details on pgsql-patches. -- Pete Forman -./\.- Disclaimer: This post is originated Western Geophysical -./\.- by myself and does not represent pete.forman@westgeo.com -./\.- the opinion of Baker Hughes or http://www.crosswinds.net/~petef -./\.- its divisions.