Re: "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm
Date: 2009-05-04 12:57:35
Message-ID: 27656.1241441855@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Somebody else mentioned, and IIRC I talked to Dave about this before,
> that this could be because the address is no longer available. The
> reason for this could be some kind of race condition in the backends
> starting - the address is available when the postmaster starts and thus
> it's used, but when a regular backend starts, the memory is used for
> something else.

How is it no longer available, when the new backend is a brand new
process? The "race condition" bit seems even sillier --- if there
are multiple backends starting, they're each an independent process.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) 2009-05-04 14:07:45 Synchronous replication: Promotion of Standby to Primary
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-05-04 12:45:34 Re: windows shared memory error