Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 18:19:08 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: Cygwin-Developers Cc: Pgsql-Cygwin Subject: Re: UNIX domain socket change breaks PostgreSQL (was Re: [CYGWIN] initdb fails) Message-ID: <20010418181908.A768@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: Cygwin-Developers , Pgsql-Cygwin References: <20010418164518 DOT B394 AT dothill DOT com> <20010418164828 DOT A30878 AT redhat DOT com> <20010418165809 DOT C394 AT dothill DOT com> <20010418172443 DOT A31159 AT redhat DOT com> <20010418175318 DOT E394 AT dothill DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <20010418175318.E394@dothill.com>; from Jason.Tishler@dothill.com on Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 05:53:18PM -0400 On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 05:53:18PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: >Chris, > >On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 05:24:43PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 04:58:09PM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: >> >On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 04:48:28PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >>Which part of the patch caused the problem? >> > >> >If I only back out the select part: >> > >> >http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/winsup/cygwin/select.cc.diff?cvsroot=uberbaum&r1=1.35&r2=1.36 >> > >> >then PostgreSQL is happy again. >> >> I can't imagine how that could be. That is a dummy socket. It should >> have no effect on anything but cygwin. > >By "cygwin" do you mean the DLL or any Cygwin process? I wasn't explicit >but both postmaster and psql are Cygwin processes. I meant "internal to cygwin". The SO_LINGER change only affects a socket that is used by cygwin. I think it is possible that reverting that change might have slowed down select enough that it made things appear to work, though. >> I could believe that the change to AF_UNIX sockets would have an effect, >> though. I've backed out that patch since it was ill-advised. > >I will do a full cvs update, make clean, and make to verify that the >problem is fixed in the current CVS. I'll report back tomorrow. Ok. I would be interested in seeing if all of the changes that I made affect PostgresSQL. >> Could you try putting back the select change and backing out the net.cc >> change? I would be interested in seeing if that fixes things too. > >This fixes the problem too which implies that it should be fixed in the >current CVS. Good. That makes sense. I should have read the description of SO_LINGER before I made the change for AF_UNIX sockets. If I had, I never would have considered it. cgf