Re: Removing service-related code in pg_ctl for Cygwin

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, marco(dot)atzeri(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Removing service-related code in pg_ctl for Cygwin
Date: 2016-01-19 05:11:20
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSKOa5uT=p2vDjkV_GTAWLD=Gr7wEC0YjE+T5w-TzB-Gg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> On 01/14/2016 12:38 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Beginning a new thread seems more adapted regarding $subject but
>> that's mentioned here as well:
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqQXghm_SdB5iniupz1atzMxk=95gv9A8ocdo83SXCNjeg@mail.gmail.com
>>
>> It happens based on some investigation from Andrew that cygwin does
>> not need to use the service-related code, aka register/unregister
>> options or similar that are proper to WIN32 and rely instead on
>> cygrunsrv with a SYSV-like init file to manage the service. Based on
>> my tests with cygwin, I am able to see as well that a server started
>> within a cygwin session is able to persist even after it is closed,
>> which is kind of nice and I think that it is a additional reason to
>> not use the service-related code paths. Hence what about the following
>> patch, that makes cygwin behave like any *nix OS when using pg_ctl?
>> This simplifies a bit the code.
>>
>> Marco, as I think you do some packaging for Postgres in Cygwin, and
>> others, does that sound acceptable?
>>
>
>
>
> I think we can be a bit more adventurous and remove all the Cygwin-specific
> code. See attached patch, which builds fine on buildfarm cockatiel.

Ah, OK. I see the difference. It builds as well for me.

-#ifndef __CYGWIN__
- AddUserToTokenDacl(restrictedToken);
-#endif
[...]
-#if defined(WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__)
+#ifdef WIN32
setvbuf(stderr, NULL, _IONBF, 0);
#endif
Fine for me, those two do not seem to matter much as far as I have tested.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2016-01-19 05:11:40 Re: Combining Aggregates
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2016-01-19 05:04:36 Re: Combining Aggregates