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

Re: Fwd: 8.0 Beta3 worked, RC1 didn't!

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: pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fwd: 8.0 Beta3 worked, RC1 didn't!
Date: 2004-12-24 18:28:03
Message-ID: 9865.1103912883@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I thought it was 00xDB0000 something but I can't find any mention of
> that.  Was it removed?  Are we now starting the postgres.exe binary and
> assuming we can map to the same shared memory address as postmaster.exe?

Looks that way to me; and I think it considerably safer than using any
hard-wired address.  My current feeling is that the problem stems from
waiting too long to reattach to shared memory, and that we ought to do
that as soon as we can read the shmem address info from the temp file.

Just had a thought ... is it possible that this problem was introduced
by the recent changes to pass backend variables in shared memory instead
of in a temp file?  ISTM fairly possible that mapping that memory is
going to interfere with where we need to map the main shared memory
block.  I see that it gets unmapped after being read, but maybe the
damage is already done.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-12-24 18:28:46
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Update "Requirements" for Windows?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-12-24 18:12:37
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Update "Requirements" for Windows?

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