Re[2]: Problems with Vista and Windows 7

From: el dorado <do_ra_do(at)mail(dot)ru>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re[2]: Problems with Vista and Windows 7
Date: 2010-07-08 07:46:48
Message-ID: E1OWlom-0004NB-00.do_ra_do-mail-ru@f64.mail.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> > I've notice that in some special cases PG uses folder
> > %APPDATA% for Windows user 'postgres', instead of the
> > PostgreSQL-specific application data folder (f.e.,
> > C:\PostgreSQL\8.4\data). It results in some unexpected bugs.

>
> Could you please be more specific in describing what problems are you
> seeing on Win7?
> Regards, Igor Neyman
>
> What files are being created in %APPDATA% for the postgres user? Or
> what's it looking for there that's causing issues?
> Craig Ringer

Thank you for your answers.
Well, the beginning of the story in details is here (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-06/msg01135.php). Shortly, I tried to use functions from my own dll, but got an error "Could not open relation base\16123\16222: No such file or directory". Later I found out, using 'Process Monitor', that for some reason process 'postgres.exe' looked for this relation not in 'C:\PostgreSQL\8.4\data\base\16123\16222' but in 'C:\Users\postgres\AppData\Roaming\MyApplicationName\base\16123\16222' - certainly, there is no such file.

> Did you check, that registry key "Data Directory" is set properly in
> "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\PostgreSQL\Installations\postgresql-8.4"
> folder?
Usually I don't use standard Windows Installer but take binaries. So there is no such branch in registry. When I tried to make test and install it from Installer I got the same result. :( "Data Directory" was set to PG-specific application dir.

Regards, Marina.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message el dorado 2010-07-08 07:47:33 Re[2]: Problems with Vista and Windows 7
Previous Message Arnaud Lesauvage 2010-07-08 07:09:18 Re: 'default nextval()' loses schema-qualification in dump ?