> I am going to discard these emails. We haven't solve the Win32 terminal
> server problem and I think it needs to be moved to the TODO list instead.
Yes, please do that. I do not think there is a problem on TS other than some
missing permissions. The patch was only intended to avoid starting 2
I am going to discard these emails. We haven't solve the Win32 terminal
server problem and I think it needs to be moved to the TODO list instead.
---
Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD wrote:
>
> > o fix shared memory on Win2k
> > Just one question about the actual implementation of the
> patch - why
> > are you setting the OS version *before* you call GetVersionEx()?
>
> The Microsoft Example did a memset on the structure before
> calling void GetVersionEx().
The docs only say you have tos et the dwOSVersionInfoSiz
> Just one question about the actual implementation of the patch - why are
> you setting the OS version *before* you call GetVersionEx()?
The Microsoft Example did a memset on the structure before calling void GetVersionEx().
Setting it to a version that needs the Global\ is only a safeguard aga
> > > > o fix shared memory on Win2k terminal server
> > > >
> > > > We might be able to just mark this as not supported.
>
> The shmem code works in a terminal server session with or
> without the patch.
> Magnus had a different problem, probably permissions. Since I
> do not h
It is my opinion that we should allow pg to run as Admin on Windows, at least
with an override option. Services that run under a specified user are a headache
on Win32, because you need to store a password, and a lot of systems only have
one user.
Well I don't know that I agree with this. Pro
> > > o fix shared memory on Win2k terminal server
> > >
> > > We might be able to just mark this as not supported.
The shmem code works in a terminal server session with or without the patch.
Magnus had a different problem, probably permissions. Since I do not have a
non admin user (on a TS
> It makes no difference on any of my systems, so at least it doesn't
> completely solve the problem. I haven't heard any
> confirmation on wether
> it partially solves it.
It certainly does not solve any part of your problem. I think your problem
is a permissions problem.
It does however make
It makes no difference on any of my systems, so at least it doesn't
completely solve the problem. I haven't heard any confirmation on wether
it partially solves it.
//Magnus
>-Original Message-
>From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>Where are we on this patch?
>
>
Where are we on this patch?
---
Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD wrote:
>
> > o fix shared memory on Win2k terminal server
> >
> > We might be able to just mark this as not supported.
>
> I have attached a patch that I
> >>o fix shared memory on Win2k terminal server
> >>
> >>We might be able to just mark this as not supported.
> >
> >I have attached a patch that I think fixes this. The problem I saw
> >and fixed is, that the shmem created in a terminal services client is not
> >visible to the console
>> o fix shared memory on Win2k terminal server
>>
>> We might be able to just mark this as not supported.
>
>I have attached a patch that I think fixes this. The problem I saw
>and fixed is, that the shmem created in a terminal services
>client is not
>visible to the console (or serv
Agreed on the memory name change and I will do it when I apply the
patch.
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
-
13 matches
Mail list logo
