Magnus Hagander wrote > Tom Tom wrote: > > Magnus Hagander wrote > >> Tom Lane wrote: > >>> =?us-ascii?Q?Tom=20Tom?= <cobold@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>>> Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>>>> Attached is a pg_restore.exe off CVS tip today, which should include the > >>>>> patch. Please try this one. > >>>> I tested the restore using the provided pg_restore.exe. The output is: > >>>> pg_restore: [archiver (db)] could not execute query: could not send data > to > >> server: No buffer space available (0x00002747/10055) > >>> According to > >>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/201213 > >>> this is an acknowledged bug that's been broken since Windows 95, so > >>> I suppose we should conclude that M$ is unwilling or incompetent to > >>> fix it. > >> Yup, I was just reading that one when I saw your email. I finally got > >> around to building a libpq with this change in it - attached here. Tom > >> (not Lane), can you test this please? > >> > >> It shouldn't be this one really, since it doesn't list any modern > >> Windows versions as having this issue, but it's worth a try. > > > > Tested. The restore comes through successfuly with the patched libpq. > > So I take it that it's caused by the MS issue. Again, we are using WinXP > Professional SP2. Perhaps the > > system buffer space was _increased_ in XP (10MB comes through easily), > > still if the block is too large, it occurs (speculation). > > Yes, that sounds quite likely. They fixed the symptoms, but not the > underlying problem. > > > > Since I don't know the implementation details of the patch I'd like to ask: > > 1.This is not official patch, didn't pass the review/test cycle; do you think > that it can be used in the > > production environment (any side effects or so..)? If not, is the patch due > for a next version? > > I plan to apply it to HEAD and supported back-branches (8.3 and 8.2) now > that you have verified that it works, so it will be in the next > versions. The only potential side-effect is that it will be slightly > slower on packets >64kb, but I doubt that's even measurable in most cases. > > So yes, it should be safe to use in production. > > > > 2.Our production PG version is 8.1.3. For some reasons it is not possible to > upgrade to the LATEST; > > I tested the libpq also on this version and it worked. Is it OK? I mean, did > it worked by chance or the library > > API & contracts didn't change between this version and latest? > > Note that libpq is only the *client* side. There is no patch necessary > on the server. It might be easier to upgrade than the server? This I didn't know/realize. It's good enough for us to use only the *client* side from the HEAD. I tried the pg_restore from HEAD + patched libpq (on 8.1 installation) and it complained about missing zlib1 library. When supplied, next was libintl3 dll. Further I didn't check. Obviously the library dependencies have changed since the 8.1. How can I tell, which libraries/executables/resources of the installation are part of the *client* side (namely pg_restore), so that I can use it independently from the server version? > > Did you test it with the pg_restore that I sent, or with the one from > 8.1? The pg_restore I sent was for HEAD, as well as the libpq I sent, so > you shouldn't use those in production long-term. > > For binaries, we don't provide backpatches for 8.1 any more (it's not a > supported platform on Windows!), but you might be able to use the latest > 8.2 libpq with the 8.1 pg_restore - you'll have to try that once the > release is eventually out. > > Or you can just apply the patch to the latest 8.1 libpq and build it > yourself, of course. I think it should apply just fine. > Tomas
