> I've now had confirmation from one person (Edgars) that this solves
his
> problem. I'd like confirmation from at least one more, but things
point
> towards this being the reason.
>
> Tom - what's next? Do we want to roll RC3 with this ugly fix, or do we
> want to look at a better fix right away?
>
> One thought - what if we hard-code the address to somewhere at the 1Gb
> limit? That would limit us to 1Gb of shared buffers (or 2Gb if started
> witht he /3G switch to give user programs 3Gb in windows), but I don't
> see *anybody* needing 1Gb shared buffers... Or is that a bad idea?
>
> //Magnus
I can confirm the patched version fixes my busted win2k box. I was
unable to get Magnus's compiled binary to work, maybe because I'm using
gcc 3.4.1.
Merlin