From: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW |
Date: | 2004-03-05 13:24:19 |
Message-ID: | 4849.24.211.141.25.1078493059.squirrel@www.dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Magnus Hagander said:
>>
>> The message you are seeing looks like code that assumes that
>> a child can map to the same shared memory address as the
>> postmaster. We haven't seen that fail for anyone before, but
>> it is an assumption we weren't sure about. Of course this is
>> all a guess.
>
>
> I've seen both these messages after each other when -i is not
> specified. Been meaning to adress the issue of it not failing
> gracefully without -i on win32.
>
> Anyway. It seems the postmaster goes down while a child process is
> still going up (stats collector, I guess) or something along that line.
> This way the child can't attach to shared memory, and there you go.
>
> If you add PID information to the log, you will notice that the
> messages are from two different processes.
>
Is there a case for forcing -i and ignoring the GUC setting on Windows?
Since we can't do Unix domain sockets there it would seem to make sense.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-03-05 14:10:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-03-05 12:52:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 build under MINGW |