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

Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW
Date: 2004-03-05 13:24:19
Message-ID: 4849.24.211.141.25.1078493059.squirrel@www.dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Magnus Hagander said:
>>
>> The message you are seeing looks like code that assumes that
>> a child can map to the same shared memory address as the
>> postmaster.  We haven't seen that fail for anyone before, but
>> it is an assumption we weren't sure about.  Of course this is
>> all a guess.
>
>
> I've seen both these messages after each other when -i is not
> specified. Been meaning to adress the issue of it not failing
> gracefully without -i on win32.
>
> Anyway. It seems the postmaster goes down while a child process is
> still going up (stats collector, I guess) or something along that line.
> This way the child can't attach to shared memory, and there you go.
>
> If you add PID information to the log, you will notice that the
> messages are from two different processes.
>

Is there a case for forcing -i and ignoring the GUC setting on Windows?
Since we can't do Unix domain sockets there it would seem to make sense.

cheers

andrew



In response to

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-03-05 14:10:56
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2004-03-05 12:52:40
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW

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