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

Re: Win 32 'could not attach to proper memory at fixed address'

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>,Bryan Roberts <bryan(at)aotea(dot)co(dot)nz>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Win 32 'could not attach to proper memory at fixed address'
Date: 2004-12-13 18:51:30
Message-ID: 26962.1102963890@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> o Allow the shared memory address to be configured via GUC
>>> This is something we knew might be required and now I think it is
>>> required.  Using a fixed address was always pretty crazy.
>> 
>> I see no proof of that at all in this bug report.  The postmaster has
>> evidently managed to create the segment, so the address per se is not
>> the problem.

> Really?  You do realize we just choose a fixed address on Win32, right?

I didn't say that might not be a problem; I said this bug report doesn't
prove that it's a problem.  (And perhaps more to the point, I doubt
adding such a GUC var would fix this report.)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Luojia ChenDate: 2004-12-13 18:51:37
Subject: Re: postgresql-8.0.0 beta5 & postgresql-7.4.6 can't compile
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-12-13 18:40:14
Subject: Re: Win 32 'could not attach to proper memory at fixed address'

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