Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/11/03/16:39:39
On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:08:00PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 12:26:34PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 11:48:31AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> > I can't duplicate the ps problem and I don't use psql.exe so, unless someone
>> > can debug this, or provide more details, this will be a problem that is in
>> > 1.1.5.
>>
>> Either of the two attached patches will solve the 1.1.5 psql.exe problem.
>> I think that the first one is more correct and the second one safer (i.e.,
>> less likely to break other code).
>
>After more research, I realize that both of the above patches are wrong.
>Sorry for the gyrations but I went into frenzy mode due to the impending
>1.1.5 release (which if I remember correctly was suppose to be
>yesterday)... I was also thrown off by Cygwin's strerror(EAGAIN)
>returning "No more processes" instead of "Resource temporarily
>unavailable" as on other UNIXes (at least Solaris and RedHat 6.2 Linux).
I've had a couple of show stopper bugs reported to me which, of course, I
can't duplicate, so I've held off on the release until I can either duplicate
and fix them or someone else can fix them (hah).
>Anyway, I now think that PostgreSQL's psql should be changed to deal
>with the possibility of errno equal to EAGAIN when connect() returns -1.
>See attached patch for details.
>
>Does anyone else concur?
I don't suppose that you can see any way to fix Cygwin to "do the right
thing" can you?
cgf
>P.S. From reading the MSDN, it appears that Win32 psql should be checking
>for WSAEWOULDBLOCK too...
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -