Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: shmctl portability problem

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: shmctl portability problem
Date: 2002-01-04 04:59:42
Message-ID: 200201040459.g044xgm23040@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> The easy "fix" of taking EIDRM to be an allowable return code scares
> me.  At least on HPUX, the documented implication of this return code
> is that the shmem segment is marked for deletion but is not yet gone
> because there are still processes attached to it.  That would be
> exactly the scenario after a postmaster crash and manual "ipcrm" if
> there were any old backends still alive.  So, it seems to me that
> accepting EIDRM would defeat the entire point of this test, at least
> on some platforms.
> 
> Comments?  Is 2.4.7 simply broken and returning the wrong errno?
> If not, what should we do?

Seems we have to contact linux kernel guys or dig into the kernel
ourselves to see why that is being returned.  I do have EIDRM in BSD/OS.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-04 05:02:29
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Jeffrey W. BakerDate: 2002-01-04 04:59:11
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group