Обсуждение: BUG #4267: initdb fails
The following bug has been logged online: Bug reference: 4267 Logged by: Email address: sw@mail.ru PostgreSQL version: 8.3 Operating system: Windows XP SP3 Description: initdb fails Details: Hello, initdb fails when I tried to initialize the cluster (the same error with using installer and manual install): C:\Program Files\PostgreSQl\8.3\bin>initdb -D "C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\8.3\data" -E UTF-8 --no-locale The files belonging to this database system will be owned by user "postgres". This user must also own the server process. The database cluster will be initialized with locale C. The default text search configuration will be set to "english". fixing permissions on existing directory C:/Program Files/PostgreSQL/8.3/data ... ok creating subdirectories ... initdb: could not create directory "C:/Program Files/PostgreSQL": File exists initdb: removing contents of data directory "C:/Program Files/PostgreSQL/8.3/data" C:\Program Files\PostgreSQl\8.3\bin> Of course initdb runs from unprivileged "postgres" user and I tried short path names. Thank you!
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:39 PM, <sw@mail.ru> wrote: > > creating subdirectories ... initdb: could not create directory "C:/Program > Files/PostgreSQL": File exists I vaguely remember hearing of some weirdness like this on systems with a file or directory called 'C:\Program' -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hello Dave! As I mentioned I tried "c:\progra~1\postg~1\8.3\data" path too... The same result. Vadim
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Vadim Karacharsky <sw@mail.ru> wrote: > Hello Dave! > As I mentioned I tried "c:\progra~1\postg~1\8.3\data" path too... > The same result. Right - but sooner or later that may get expanded to the full path internally anyway. Do you have a file or directory called C:\Program? -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
No, only "Program Files". And I tried to install pgsql 8.2 (I have installed it sooner on that machine before OS reinstall) - the same error. May be problem in filesystem permissions? Vadim
2008/6/26 Vadim Karacharsky <sw@mail.ru>: > No, only "Program Files". > And I tried to install pgsql 8.2 (I have installed it sooner on that machine before OS reinstall) - the same error. > May be problem in filesystem permissions? It's possible. The fact that your running SP3 has also got me wondering a little. I assume you do have write permissions on C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\8.3? If you run from the base install directory with the following command, do you get the same error? bin\initdb -D data -E UTF-8 --no-locale -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Vadim Karacharsky <sw@mail.ru> wrote: > Yes, that's solve the problem! > > Thank you, Dave very much! Hmm, interesting. Now I just need to figure out why... -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Yes, that's solve the problem! Thank you, Dave very much! Vadim
Dave Page wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Vadim Karacharsky <sw@mail.ru> wrote: >> Yes, that's solve the problem! >> >> Thank you, Dave very much! > > Hmm, interesting. Now I just need to figure out why... Process Monitor might come in handy here. If Vadim was to use it to record a trace of a successful initdb and of a failed one, you'd have a bit more information about what is actually happening to work with. -- Craig Ringer
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote: >> Hmm, interesting. Now I just need to figure out why... > > Process Monitor might come in handy here. If Vadim was to use it to record a > trace of a successful initdb and of a failed one, you'd have a bit more > information about what is actually happening to work with. Yeah - unfortunately though recent experience with similar hard-to-find bugs have not normally shown up in PM. They've been much more subtle, usually requiring much poking around in Process Explorer which is difficult to do via email. If you can provide a Process Monitor trace of the failed initdb, it would be useful to take a look Vadim - even if it just eliminates the obvious problems. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645.aspx -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Okay, I'l install PM and trace initdb today. Vadim
Dave Page wrote: > Yeah - unfortunately though recent experience with similar > hard-to-find bugs have not normally shown up in PM. They've been much > more subtle, usually requiring much poking around in Process Explorer > which is difficult to do via email. Alas, Process Explorer doesn't seem to work on Vista. MS think that Process monitor is a replacement, but it lacks all the handy detailed process introspection, thread control, etc that Process Explorer has. Frustrating. -- Craig Ringer
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote: > Alas, Process Explorer doesn't seem to work on Vista. MS think that Process > monitor is a replacement, but it lacks all the handy detailed process > introspection, thread control, etc that Process Explorer has. > > Frustrating. Eh? Process Monitor certainly works on Vista (although I haven't used it on SP1 yet). I used it extensively when trying to figure out a rather nasty bug issue in our privilege-shedding code a while back. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Craig Ringer > <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote: > >> Alas, Process Explorer doesn't seem to work on Vista. MS think that Process >> monitor is a replacement, but it lacks all the handy detailed process >> introspection, thread control, etc that Process Explorer has. >> >> Frustrating. > > Eh? Process Monitor certainly works on Vista (although I haven't used > it on SP1 yet). I used it extensively when trying to figure out a > rather nasty bug issue in our privilege-shedding code a while back. Interesting. I've always had system stability problems after launching either it or filemon. I'm about to configure a clean Vista install (post hard disk failure) so I'll have to re-test. Perhaps there was a hook DLL or similar nastyness interfering. -- Craig Ringer
Craig Ringer wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Craig Ringer >> <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote: >> >>> Alas, Process Explorer doesn't seem to work on Vista. MS think that >>> Process >>> monitor is a replacement, but it lacks all the handy detailed process >>> introspection, thread control, etc that Process Explorer has. >>> >>> Frustrating. >> >> Eh? Process Monitor certainly works on Vista (although I haven't used >> it on SP1 yet). I used it extensively when trying to figure out a >> rather nasty bug issue in our privilege-shedding code a while back. > > Interesting. I've always had system stability problems after launching > either it or filemon. I'm about to configure a clean Vista install (post > hard disk failure) so I'll have to re-test. Perhaps there was a hook DLL > or similar nastyness interfering. Sorry, I just re-read your mail and noticed you said process monitor, not explorer. I've had issues with process *Explorer* on Vista. Process monitor works perfectly, but seems to lack some of the features of process explorer. This could have been system configuration specific, but I've seen enough reports to think it's probably not. Anyway, this is way off topic. -- Craig Ringer
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote: > Craig Ringer wrote: > > Sorry, I just re-read your mail and noticed you said process monitor, not > explorer. I did mean Process Explorer though :-). -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com