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