Re: ipc-daemon2 failure

Roger,

On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 05:38:11PM +0100, Roger Ackroyd wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Tishler" <jason@tishler.net>
> To: "Roger Ackroyd" <postgresql@ackroyd.freeserve.co.uk>
> Cc: <pgsql-cygwin@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 3:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [CYGWIN] ipc-daemon2 failure
>
> > IIRC, you had other problems besides the AF_UNIX socket problem.  I
> > was hoping that you could clearly articulate them so I can *easily*
> > update the README as necessary.  I will go with Seth changes unless
> > I hear otherwise.
> >
> It was only when I upgraded cygwin1.dll that everything finally worked.

Yes.

> I may have been dealing with more than one problem.

It appears so.

> [snip]
>
> > > On the readme, under requirements, it recommends cygwin 1.3.16-1.
> > > At footnote [16] ref step 10, it states 'For cygwin 1.3.22-1 and
> > > below, a bug prevents this from working...'. Is this problem
> > > something related to this without perhaps being the direct cause?)
> >
> > Huh?  The above is very hard to understand.
>
> I was referring to Seths amendments to the original readme, that might
> have confued it. To try and clarify it states:-
> In requirements
> The following packages or later are required ...
                         ^^^^^^^^
> ...
> cygwin 1.3.16-1
> ...
>
> Then at footnote [16] with reference to Connect to PostgreSQL (psql)
> step 10
>
> "[16] For cygwin 1.3.22-1 and below a bug prevents this from working
> ... ... "
>
> Which of these is correct?  If the second is correct, then surely end
> to end readme procedure cannot work.

Both are not quite right anymore.  I don't know exactly when the AF_UNIX
problem was introduced.  IIRC, it was 1.3.20, but I don't have the
energy to track down this detail.

> I know it seems like a minor point but,

Yes.  It will become even more insignificant when I rebuild PostgreSQL
against 1.5.x and update the README accordingly.

> Did upgrading to cygwin1.dll 1.5.1 possibly cure [16] and one or more
> other problems with cygwin on this machine?  That is what I cannot be
> sure of.

AFAICT, only [16].

> Is there a version later than 1.3.22-1 and equal to or earlier than
> 1.5.1, that is known to cure all or any of the observed similar
> problems?

Yes, 1.5.0, but again it only fixes [16].

> In which case does cygwin version 1.3.16-1 in requirements need to be
> changed?

See above.

> Does footnote [16] then become redundant?

See above.

> Also, I could have been doing something else wrong (and in parallel)
> all along before I (obviously) did it right!

IIRC, yes.

Jason

--
PGP/GPG Key: http://www.tishler.net/jason/pubkey.asc or key servers
Fingerprint: 7A73 1405 7F2B E669 C19D  8784 1AFD E4CC ECF4 8EF6