From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "'Hannu Krosing'" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
Cc: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: FW: [CYGWIN] 7.2b3 postmaster doesn't start on Win9 |
Date: | 2001-12-04 09:19:29 |
Message-ID: | FED2B709E3270E4B903EB0175A49BCB1047328@dogbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hannu Krosing [mailto:hannu(at)tm(dot)ee]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 09:06
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: 'Tom Lane'; mlw; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] FW: [CYGWIN] 7.2b3 postmaster doesn't
> start on Win98
>
>
> Dave Page wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> > > Sent: 04 December 2001 02:53
> > > To: mlw
> > > Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> > > Subject: Re: FW: [CYGWIN] 7.2b3 postmaster doesn't start on Win98
> > >
> > >
> > > mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> > > > I'll write and test something with cygwin this week if
> that would
> > > > help. (If someone can get to it first it is something
> stupid like
> > > > "GetWindowsVersion()" or something like that.
> > >
> > > Well, the non-stupid part is to know which return values
> correspond
> > > to Windows versions that have proper file permissions and which
> > > values to versions that don't.
>
> IIRC, it depends also on filesystem, i.e. FAT32 on NT/2000
> dos still not have proper permissions.
>
> > > Given
> > > that NT and the other versions are two separate code
> streams (no?),
> > > I'm not sure that distinguishing this is trivial, and
> even less sure
> > > that we should assume all future Windows releases will
> have it. I'd
> > > be more comfortable with an autoconf-like
> > > approach: actually probe the desired feature and see if it works.
> > >
> > > I was thinking this morning about trying to chmod the
> directory and,
> > > if that doesn't report an error, assuming that all is well. On
> > > Windows it'd presumably claim success despite not being
> able to do
> > > what is asked for. But this would definitely require testing.
> >
> > It does (at least on my systems).
>
> It does what ? Report an error, claim success or need testing ?
Appears to succeed. I haven't tested any return values, however the chmod
certainly failed without giving any error message.
/Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Karel Zak | 2001-12-04 09:22:20 | Re: Second call for platform testing |
Previous Message | Laszlo Hornyak | 2001-12-04 09:12:30 | Re: java stored procedures |