Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 16:37:16 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PORTS] Re: ps and psql from PostgreSQL not working with cygwin-1.1.5-2 Message-ID: <20001103163716.A19118@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com References: <20001029205046.A19137@redhat.com> <20001031114831.A27220@redhat.com> <20001102122634.A211@dothill.com> <20001103160800.A523@dothill.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i In-Reply-To: <20001103160800.A523@dothill.com>; from Jason.Tishler@dothill.com on Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 04:08:00PM -0500 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@sourceware.cygnus.com