| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken) |
| Date: | 2017-06-06 16:58:54 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobtqbxyNiKDhdKYpyWs=w-8afn9h6jkzWCSscxmG1FmhQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> By definition, the address range we're trying to reuse worked successfully
> in the postmaster process. I don't see how forcing a specific address
> could do anything but create an additional risk of postmaster startup
> failure.
If the postmaster picked an address where other things are unlikely to
get loaded, then that would increase the chances of child processes
finding it available, wouldn't it?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-06 17:07:57 | Re: Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-06 16:56:38 | Re: intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests |