Re: semaphore usage "port based"?

From: Andrew Thompson <thompsa(at)freebsd(dot)org>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, freebsd-stable(at)freebsd(dot)org
Subject: Re: semaphore usage "port based"?
Date: 2006-04-03 03:59:11
Message-ID: 20060403035911.GA76193@heff.fud.org.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:41:01PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 12:30:58AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > 'k, but how do I fix kill so that it has the proper behaviour if SysV is
> > enabled?
>
> Check the source, perhaps there's already a way. If not, talk to
> whoever made the change.
>
> > Maybe a mount option for procfs that allows for pre-5.x
> > behaviour?
>
> procfs has nothing to do with this though.
>
> > I'm not the first one to point out that this is a problem, just
> > the first to follow it through to the cause ;( And I believe there is
> > more then just PostgreSQL that is affected by shared memory (ie. apache2
> > needs SysV IPC enabled, so anyone doing that in a jail has it enabled
> > also) ...
>
> Also note that SysV IPC is not the problem here, it's the change in
> the behaviour of kill() that is causing postgresql to become confused.
> That's what you should investigate.

The ESRCH error is being returned from prison_check(), that would be a
good starting place.

Andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marc G. Fournier 2006-04-03 04:24:33 Re: semaphore usage "port based"?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2006-04-03 03:52:21 Back, heading to Boston