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

Re: [PATCH] "could not reattach to shared memory" on Windows

From: Etienne Dube <etdube(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] "could not reattach to shared memory" on Windows
Date: 2010-02-09 21:09:16
Message-ID: 4B71CEFC.6080807@gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> IIRC, we've had zero reports on whether the patch worked at all on 8.2
> in an environment where the problem actually existed. So yes, some
> testing and feedback would be much apprecaited.
>
> //Magnus
>   

Thanks for your quick reply.
We upgraded to Service Pack 2 and it solved the problem. Nevertheless, 
I'll try to reproduce the issue under a Win2008 SP1 VM to see whether 
the patch makes a difference. 8.2.x win32 binaries are built using MinGW 
right?

Etienne




> 2010/2/8 Etienne Dube <etdube(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> We've come across this issue on 8.2.15 on a Windows Server 2008 instance. I noticed the patch hasn't been applied to the 8.2 branch yet. Any chances that this will be part of an eventual 8.2.16 release? Do you need more testing and feedback before commiting the patch?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Etienne Dube
>>
>>
>>     
>>>    * *From*: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
>>>    * *To*: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>>>    * *Cc*: Tsutomu Yamada <tsutomu(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Alvaro Herrera
>>>      <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave
>>>      Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
>>>    * *Subject*: Re: [PATCH] "could not reattach to shared memory" on
>>>      Windows
>>>    * *Date*: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:14:08 +0200
>>>    * *Message-id*:
>>>      <9837222c0908110814n414b2fcbxcaf7c0e1fcc05999(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
>>>      <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg00894.php>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 16:30, Magnus Hagander<magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 19:33, Magnus Hagander<magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:58, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>>>> 8.2 as well, no?
>>>>>>>>                 
>>>>>>> 8.2 has a different shmem implementation - the one that emulates sysv
>>>>>>> shmem. The patch will need to be changed around for that, and I
>>>>>>> haven't looked at that. It may be worthwhile to do that, but it's a
>>>>>>> separate patch, so let's get it out in 8.3 and 8.4 first.
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> If it's at all hard to do, I could see deprecating 8.2 for Windows
>>>>>> instead.
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I haven't looked at how much work it would be at all yet. So let's do
>>>>> that before we decide to deprecate anything. As mentioned downthread,
>>>>> 8.2 is a very widespread release, and we really want to avoid
>>>>> deprecating it.
>>>>>           
>>>> Here's an attempt at a backport to 8.2. I haven't examined it  in
>>>> detail, but it passes "make check" on mingw.
>>>>
>>>> Comments?
>>>>         
>>> I've also built a binary that should be copy:able on top of an 8.2.13
>>> installation made from the standard installer, to test this feature.
>>> Anybody on 8.2 on Windows, please give it a shot and let us know how
>>> it works.
>>>
>>> http://www.hagander.net/pgsql/postgres_exe_virtualalloc_8_2.zip
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>  Magnus Hagander
>>>
>>>       
>>>  Me: http://www.hagander.net/
>>>  Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2010-02-09 21:46:53
Subject: Re: Listen / Notify - what to do when the queue is full
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-02-09 20:26:29
Subject: Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch

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