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

Re: [PATCHES] Open Items

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>,"Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,"PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Cc: <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Open Items
Date: 2004-10-19 14:09:17
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D1F5@m0114.s-mxs.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
> >> 	o fix shared memory on Win2k terminal server
> >> 
> >> 	We might be able to just mark this as not supported.
> >
> >I have attached a patch that I think fixes this. The problem I saw 
> >and fixed is, that the shmem created in a terminal services client is not 
> >visible to the console (or services.msc).
> 
> Does this actually fix the problem for you?
> Because, as I have previously posted I think, it does *not* solve the
> problem on any of my test machines. I still get the shmget() error
> message when running from a TS session.

I think you are having another problem. 
I can create it here (with or without the patch). I am running 
W2000 5.00.2195 SP4. Maybe you are having a permissions problem? 
I am using a user with near Administrator privs.

> Also, I don't really see how the visibility of the shmem segment
> matters.

If it really does not matter, please don't apply my patch Bruce.
(still do the rename though please)

> We can't *create* the first instance of it, which should not
> affect this at all. And if we passed that, all backends are still
> execute in the same session, so there is no effect on it.

Yes it only matters if postmaster is started/trying to start from different 
TS Sessions. I think we need to determine global existance of the shm segment 
to get rid of old processes/segments.

> services.msc only interacts with the SCM, it has nothing at all to do
> with shmem.

I meant if "run as a service", which is the same TS session as the console.

Andreas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas SwanDate: 2004-10-19 15:04:54
Subject: Re: Hypothetical Indexes
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-10-19 13:50:37
Subject: Command-line parsing in pg_ctl is not portable

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-10-19 15:44:05
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] strange result from contrib/seg regression on windows
Previous:From: Devrim GUNDUZDate: 2004-10-19 13:48:11
Subject: Updated Turkish translations

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