| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: shmctl portability problem |
| Date: | 2002-01-04 04:59:42 |
| Message-ID: | 200201040459.g044xgm23040@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The easy "fix" of taking EIDRM to be an allowable return code scares
> me. At least on HPUX, the documented implication of this return code
> is that the shmem segment is marked for deletion but is not yet gone
> because there are still processes attached to it. That would be
> exactly the scenario after a postmaster crash and manual "ipcrm" if
> there were any old backends still alive. So, it seems to me that
> accepting EIDRM would defeat the entire point of this test, at least
> on some platforms.
>
> Comments? Is 2.4.7 simply broken and returning the wrong errno?
> If not, what should we do?
Seems we have to contact linux kernel guys or dig into the kernel
ourselves to see why that is being returned. I do have EIDRM in BSD/OS.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-04 05:02:29 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
| Previous Message | Jeffrey W. Baker | 2002-01-04 04:59:11 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |