Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian writes: > To get into the FAQ, it should be something that happens _frequently_, Just check the pgsql-cygwin archives. We really need a separate list of Constantly Asked Questions for this. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jason Tishler wrote: > Bruce, > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:42:30AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > To get into the FAQ, it should be something that happens _frequently_, > > hence FAQ. > > Understood. That is why is said "for consideration." > > > Fact is, cygwin may not even be needed in 7.4

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-18 Thread Jason Tishler
Bruce, On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:42:30AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > To get into the FAQ, it should be something that happens _frequently_, > hence FAQ. Understood. That is why is said "for consideration." > Fact is, cygwin may not even be needed in 7.4 because we are > working on a native p

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
To get into the FAQ, it should be something that happens _frequently_, hence FAQ. Fact is, cygwin may not even be needed in 7.4 because we are working on a native port. --- Jason Tishler wrote: > Richard, > > On Sat, Nov 1

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-18 Thread S. L.
Richard Pais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Just an explanation in the FAQ that the ipc-daemon is not running won't suffice. >Because in my case I had ipc-daemon (version 1.11) running and it still hung (Jason's >patch reported the IpcMemoryCreate error). Only when I downgraded to version 1.09

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-18 Thread Richard Pais
Just an explanation in the FAQ that the ipc-daemon is not running won't suffice.  Because in my case I had ipc-daemon (version 1.11) running and it still hung (Jason's patch reported the IpcMemoryCreate error).  Only when I downgraded to version 1.09 (office) and upgraded to 1.13 (home) did initdb

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-18 Thread Jason Tishler
Richard, On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 02:27:22PM -0800, Richard Pais wrote: > Just an explanation in the FAQ that the ipc-daemon is not running > won't suffice. Because in my case I had ipc-daemon (version 1.11) > running and it still hung (Jason's patch reported the IpcMemoryCreate > error). Only wh

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-16 Thread Bruce Momjian
We normally don't go into that much detail in the FAQ unless someone is seeing that problem case a lot. --- Richard Pais wrote: > > Just an explanation in the FAQ that the ipc-daemon is not running won't suffice. >Because

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
At least that is an FAQ item. --- Jason Tishler wrote: > Tom, > Peter, > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 03:05:25PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:43:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > If you can detect

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-15 Thread Jason Tishler
Tom, Peter, On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 03:05:25PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:43:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > If you can detect that cygipc is not running, then ENOSYS seems the > > best choice for reporting that. (ENOSPC would be misleading too.) > > Thanks for your

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-05 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> I disagree: just because cygipc returns error codes chosen at random >> doesn't mean that we should neglect the clear meaning of an error code. >> If a normal Unix system were to return EACCES here, the clear >> implication would be

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > I disagree: just because cygipc returns error codes chosen at random > doesn't mean that we should neglect the clear meaning of an error code. > If a normal Unix system were to return EACCES here, the clear > implication would be that there is an existing segment that we do not

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-04 Thread Jason Tishler
Tom, Peter, On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 02:43:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > To me, this is a bug in PostgreSQL. > > I disagree: just because cygipc returns error codes chosen at random > doesn't mean that we should neglect the clear meaning of an error

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-04 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jason Tishler writes: >> 1. If ipc-daemon is not running, then cygipc's shmget() will return >> EACCES. >> 2. This causes PostgreSQL's InternalIpcMemoryCreate() to return >> NULL. >> 3. This causes PostgreSQL's PGSharedMemoryCreate() to spin looking >>

Re: [HACKERS] [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon

2002-11-04 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Jason Tishler writes: > 1. If ipc-daemon is not running, then cygipc's shmget() will return >EACCES. > 2. This causes PostgreSQL's InternalIpcMemoryCreate() to return >NULL. > 3. This causes PostgreSQL's PGSharedMemoryCreate() to spin looking >for accessible sha