Re: pg_restore fails on Windows

Magnus Hagander wrote
> Tom Tom wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> =?us-ascii?Q?Tom=20Tom?= <cobold(at)seznam(dot)cz> writes:
> >>>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>>>> Attached is a pg_restore.exe off CVS tip today, which should include the
> >>>>> patch. Please try this one.
> >>>> I tested the restore using the provided pg_restore.exe. The output is:
> >>>> pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: could not send data
> to
> >> server: No buffer space available (0x00002747/10055)
> >>> According to
> >>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/201213
> >>> this is an acknowledged bug that's been broken since Windows 95, so
> >>> I suppose we should conclude that M$ is unwilling or incompetent to
> >>> fix it.
> >> Yup, I was just reading that one when I saw your email. I finally got
> >> around to building a libpq with this change in it - attached here. Tom
> >> (not Lane), can you test this please?
> >>
> >> It shouldn't be this one really, since it doesn't list any modern
> >> Windows versions as having this issue, but it's worth a try.
> >
> > Tested. The restore comes through successfuly with the patched libpq.
> > So I take it that it's caused by the MS issue. Again, we are using WinXP
> Professional SP2. Perhaps the
> > system buffer space was _increased_ in XP (10MB comes through easily),
> > still if the block is too large, it occurs (speculation).
>
> Yes, that sounds quite likely. They fixed the symptoms, but not the
> underlying problem.
>
>
> > Since I don't know the implementation details of the patch I'd like to ask:
> > 1.This is not official patch, didn't pass the review/test cycle; do you think
> that it can be used in the
> > production environment (any side effects or so..)? If not, is the patch due
> for a next version?
>
> I plan to apply it to HEAD and supported back-branches (8.3 and 8.2) now
> that you have verified that it works, so it will be in the next
> versions. The only potential side-effect is that it will be slightly
> slower on packets >64kb, but I doubt that's even measurable in most cases.
>
> So yes, it should be safe to use in production.
>
>
> > 2.Our production PG version is 8.1.3. For some reasons it is not possible to
> upgrade to the LATEST;
> > I tested the libpq also on this version and it worked. Is it OK? I mean, did
> it worked by chance or the library
> > API & contracts didn't change between this version and latest?
>
> Note that libpq is only the *client* side. There is no patch necessary
> on the server. It might be easier to upgrade than the server?

This I didn't know/realize. It's good enough for us to use only the *client* side from the HEAD.
I tried the pg_restore from HEAD + patched libpq (on 8.1 installation) and it complained about missing zlib1 library. When
supplied, next was libintl3 dll. Further I didn't check. Obviously the library dependencies have changed since the 8.1.
How can I tell, which libraries/executables/resources of the installation are part of the *client* side (namely pg_restore),
so that I can use it independently from the server version?

>
> Did you test it with the pg_restore that I sent, or with the one from
> 8.1? The pg_restore I sent was for HEAD, as well as the libpq I sent, so
> you shouldn't use those in production long-term.
>
> For binaries, we don't provide backpatches for 8.1 any more (it's not a
> supported platform on Windows!), but you might be able to use the latest
> 8.2 libpq with the 8.1 pg_restore - you'll have to try that once the
> release is eventually out.
>
> Or you can just apply the patch to the latest 8.1 libpq and build it
> yourself, of course. I think it should apply just fine.
>

Tomas