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

Re: autovacuum multiworkers, patch 5

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: autovacuum multiworkers, patch 5
Date: 2007-04-12 14:58:16
Message-ID: 20070412145816.GA15947@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> > 
> > I tested your patch on Linux and Windows. It works well on Linux,
> > where we use fork(), but falls into segfault on Windows, where we
> > use exec(). Maybe you forgot to initialize the shared memory stuff.
> > (I haven't find out where to be fixed, sorry.)
> 
> Ok, thanks, this confirms that I have to try the EXEC_BACKEND code path.

Oh, uh, the problem is that CreateSharedMemoryAndSemaphores wants to
have access to the PGPROC already, but to obtain the PGPROC we need
access to autovac shared memory (per AutoVacuumGetFreeProc).  So this
wasn't too bright a choice :-(

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: RonDate: 2007-04-12 14:59:10
Subject: Re: Slow Postgresql server
Previous:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-04-12 14:55:07
Subject: Re: elog(FATAL) vs shared memory

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: RonDate: 2007-04-12 14:59:10
Subject: Re: Slow Postgresql server
Previous:From: Guido NeitzerDate: 2007-04-12 14:08:03
Subject: Re: Slow Postgresql server

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