Re: BUG #4267: initdb fails

Hello Dave!
As I mentioned I tried "c:\progra~1\postg~1\8.3\data" path too...
The same result.

Vadim

On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Vadim Karacharsky <sw(at)mail(dot)ru> wrote:
> Hello Dave!
> As I mentioned I tried "c:\progra~1\postg~1\8.3\data" path too...
> The same result.

Right - but sooner or later that may get expanded to the full path
internally anyway. Do you have a file or directory called C:\Program?

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

No, only "Program Files".
And I tried to install pgsql 8.2 (I have installed it sooner on that machine before OS reinstall) - the same error.
May be problem in filesystem permissions?

Vadim

2008/6/26 Vadim Karacharsky <sw(at)mail(dot)ru>:
> No, only "Program Files".
> And I tried to install pgsql 8.2 (I have installed it sooner on that machine before OS reinstall) - the same error.
> May be problem in filesystem permissions?

It's possible. The fact that your running SP3 has also got me
wondering a little. I assume you do have write permissions on
C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\8.3?

If you run from the base install directory with the following command,
do you get the same error?

bin\initdb -D data -E UTF-8 --no-locale

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Yes, that's solve the problem!

Thank you, Dave very much!

Vadim

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Vadim Karacharsky <sw(at)mail(dot)ru> wrote:
> Yes, that's solve the problem!
>
> Thank you, Dave very much!

Hmm, interesting. Now I just need to figure out why...

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Vadim Karacharsky <sw(at)mail(dot)ru> wrote:
>> Yes, that's solve the problem!
>>
>> Thank you, Dave very much!
>
> Hmm, interesting. Now I just need to figure out why...

Process Monitor might come in handy here. If Vadim was to use it to
record a trace of a successful initdb and of a failed one, you'd have a
bit more information about what is actually happening to work with.

--
Craig Ringer

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Craig Ringer
<craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>> Hmm, interesting. Now I just need to figure out why...
>
> Process Monitor might come in handy here. If Vadim was to use it to record a
> trace of a successful initdb and of a failed one, you'd have a bit more
> information about what is actually happening to work with.

Yeah - unfortunately though recent experience with similar
hard-to-find bugs have not normally shown up in PM. They've been much
more subtle, usually requiring much poking around in Process Explorer
which is difficult to do via email.

If you can provide a Process Monitor trace of the failed initdb, it
would be useful to take a look Vadim - even if it just eliminates the
obvious problems.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645.aspx

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Okay,
I'l install PM and trace initdb today.

Vadim

Dave Page wrote:

> Yeah - unfortunately though recent experience with similar
> hard-to-find bugs have not normally shown up in PM. They've been much
> more subtle, usually requiring much poking around in Process Explorer
> which is difficult to do via email.

Alas, Process Explorer doesn't seem to work on Vista. MS think that
Process monitor is a replacement, but it lacks all the handy detailed
process introspection, thread control, etc that Process Explorer has.

Frustrating.

--
Craig Ringer

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Craig Ringer
<craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:

> Alas, Process Explorer doesn't seem to work on Vista. MS think that Process
> monitor is a replacement, but it lacks all the handy detailed process
> introspection, thread control, etc that Process Explorer has.
>
> Frustrating.

Eh? Process Monitor certainly works on Vista (although I haven't used
it on SP1 yet). I used it extensively when trying to figure out a
rather nasty bug issue in our privilege-shedding code a while back.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Craig Ringer
> <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>
>> Alas, Process Explorer doesn't seem to work on Vista. MS think that Process
>> monitor is a replacement, but it lacks all the handy detailed process
>> introspection, thread control, etc that Process Explorer has.
>>
>> Frustrating.
>
> Eh? Process Monitor certainly works on Vista (although I haven't used
> it on SP1 yet). I used it extensively when trying to figure out a
> rather nasty bug issue in our privilege-shedding code a while back.

Interesting. I've always had system stability problems after launching
either it or filemon. I'm about to configure a clean Vista install (post
hard disk failure) so I'll have to re-test. Perhaps there was a hook DLL
or similar nastyness interfering.

--
Craig Ringer

Craig Ringer wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Craig Ringer
>> <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>>
>>> Alas, Process Explorer doesn't seem to work on Vista. MS think that
>>> Process
>>> monitor is a replacement, but it lacks all the handy detailed process
>>> introspection, thread control, etc that Process Explorer has.
>>>
>>> Frustrating.
>>
>> Eh? Process Monitor certainly works on Vista (although I haven't used
>> it on SP1 yet). I used it extensively when trying to figure out a
>> rather nasty bug issue in our privilege-shedding code a while back.
>
> Interesting. I've always had system stability problems after launching
> either it or filemon. I'm about to configure a clean Vista install (post
> hard disk failure) so I'll have to re-test. Perhaps there was a hook DLL
> or similar nastyness interfering.

Sorry, I just re-read your mail and noticed you said process monitor,
not explorer.

I've had issues with process *Explorer* on Vista. Process monitor works
perfectly, but seems to lack some of the features of process explorer.
This could have been system configuration specific, but I've seen enough
reports to think it's probably not.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

--
Craig Ringer

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Craig Ringer
<craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> Craig Ringer wrote:

>
> Sorry, I just re-read your mail and noticed you said process monitor, not
> explorer.

I did mean Process Explorer though :-).

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com