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

Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What is happening on buildfarm member baiji?
Date: 2007-06-04 08:51:20
Message-ID: 20070604085120.GC21240@svr2.hagander.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:44:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Given this, I propose we simply #ifdef out the SO_REUSEADDR on win32.
> >> Anybody see a problem with this?
> 
> > Is that true even if the backend crashes?
> 
> It would take a postmaster crash to make this an issue, and those are
> pretty doggone rare.  Not that the question shouldn't be checked, but
> we might decide to tolerate the problem if there is one ...

The closest I can get is a kill -9 on postmaster, and that does work. I
can't start a new postmaster while the old backend is running - because of
the shared memory detection stuff. But the second it's gone I can start a
new one, so it doesn't have that wait-until-timeout behavior.

Since that's expected behavior and there were no other complaints, I think
I'll go ahead an put this one in later today.

//Magnus

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Enrico SirolaDate: 2007-06-04 08:53:36
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] table partitioning pl/pgsql helpers
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2007-06-04 07:54:11
Subject: Running all tests by default

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