Re: "could not reattach to shared memory" on buildfarm member dory

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "could not reattach to shared memory" on buildfarm member dory
Date: 2018-04-28 02:06:52
Message-ID: 31967.1524881212@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:37:33AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Maybe try asking what's mapped there with VirtualQueryEx() on failure?

> +1. An implementation of that:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170403065106.GA2624300%40tornado.leadboat.com

Not seeing any other work happening here, I pushed a little bit of
quick-hack investigation code. This is based on noting that
VirtualAllocEx is documented as rounding the allocation up to a page
boundary (4K), but there's nothing specific about whether or how much
CreateFileMapping or MapViewOfFileEx might round up. The observed
failures could be explained if those guys might eat more virtual
address space for the same request size as VirtualAllocEx does.
This is a stretch, for sure, but given the lack of any other theories
we might as well check it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2018-04-28 02:35:35 Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables are not supported
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-04-27 23:43:32 Re: Postgres, fsync, and OSs (specifically linux)