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

Re: Service not starting: Error 1053

From: Frank Featherlight <dirtydude(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Service not starting: Error 1053
Date: 2009-02-25 04:44:45
Message-ID: 463114950902242044u2dfd0e68v391a6205f27cc468@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Dear Tom,

while reading your thread two things come to mind, I have installed:
Registry Mechanic ( http://www.pctools.com/registry-mechanic )
Tune-Up Utilities ( http://www.tune-up.com/products/tuneup-utilities )
Any of these two might cause the problem aswell in your opinion?

With kind regards, Frank.

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I don't really know anything about PostgreSQL on Windows, so I'm
> > afraid I can't give you too much help.  My gut feeling from years of
> > experience with debugging random weird problems on various platforms
> > is that we need to know more about why this is happening to you and
> > not to other people.
>
> It is happening to *some* other people, as shown by previous bug
> reports, but what we lack is a way to reproduce it or identify just
> what's causing it.
>
> The error number 487 (which I think Frank is the first reporter to
> positively confirm) confirms our previous theory that the problem is
> inability to map the shared memory segment due to something else having
> already occupied the needed address range in the new child process.
> However, since the child process is running the same postmaster
> executable that was able to map the shared memory segment at that
> address to begin with, it's far from clear why that failure should
> occur.  And experience shows that most of the time, for most people,
> it doesn't occur.
>
> My guess is that the cause is some sort of add-on software that
> invasively attaches itself to new processes.  That could well be
> an antivirus, or a virus, or something else entirely (network
> stack addon?).  Your suggestions about methodically trying to
> identify the cause are good.
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-02-25 04:51:04
Subject: Re: Service not starting: Error 1053
Previous:From: Frank FeatherlightDate: 2009-02-25 04:41:17
Subject: Re: Service not starting: Error 1053

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