| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marcin Waldowski <M(dot)Waldowski(at)sulechow(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #3242: FATAL: could not unlock semaphore: error code 298 |
| Date: | 2007-04-20 07:51:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20070420075110.GA9033@svr2.hagander.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 09:20:05AM +0200, Marcin Waldowski wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I've made some analysis of PostgreSQL code. It looks like void
> PGSemaphoreUnlock(PGSemaphore sema) from backend\port\win32_sema.c was
> executed one time more than needed.
Certainly looks that way.
I've looked at the code there, and can't find a clear problem. One way it
could happen is if the actual PGSemaphoreUnlock() is called once more than
needed.
CC:ing to hackers for this question:
Any chance that's happening? If this happens with SysV semaphores, will
they error out, or just say it was done and do nothing? (meaning should we
actuallyi be ignoring this error on windows?)
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marcin Waldowski | 2007-04-20 08:09:39 | Re: BUG #3242: FATAL: could not unlock semaphore: error code 298 |
| Previous Message | Marcin Waldowski | 2007-04-20 07:20:05 | Re: BUG #3242: FATAL: could not unlock semaphore: error code 298 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marcin Waldowski | 2007-04-20 08:09:39 | Re: BUG #3242: FATAL: could not unlock semaphore: error code 298 |
| Previous Message | Zoltan Boszormenyi | 2007-04-20 07:27:46 | Re: parser dilemma |