| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: 8.0 Beta3 worked, RC1 didn't! |
| Date: | 2004-12-29 13:49:42 |
| Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A7587@Herge.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> I've now had confirmation from one person (Edgars) that this solves
his
> problem. I'd like confirmation from at least one more, but things
point
> towards this being the reason.
>
> Tom - what's next? Do we want to roll RC3 with this ugly fix, or do we
> want to look at a better fix right away?
>
> One thought - what if we hard-code the address to somewhere at the 1Gb
> limit? That would limit us to 1Gb of shared buffers (or 2Gb if started
> witht he /3G switch to give user programs 3Gb in windows), but I don't
> see *anybody* needing 1Gb shared buffers... Or is that a bad idea?
>
> //Magnus
I can confirm the patched version fixes my busted win2k box. I was
unable to get Magnus's compiled binary to work, maybe because I'm using
gcc 3.4.1.
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-29 17:00:32 | Re: Fwd: 8.0 Beta3 worked, RC1 didn't! |
| Previous Message | Nicolas COUSSEMACQ | 2004-12-29 10:06:42 | Re: Fwd: 8.0 Beta3 worked, RC1 didn't! |