Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidaeis *still* broken)
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmobtqbxyNiKDhdKYpyWs=w-8afn9h6jkzWCSscxmG1FmhQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> By definition, the address range we're trying to reuse worked successfully
> in the postmaster process.  I don't see how forcing a specific address
> could do anything but create an additional risk of postmaster startup
> failure.

If the postmaster picked an address where other things are unlikely to
get loaded, then that would increase the chances of child processes
finding it available, wouldn't it?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] intermittent failures in Cygwin from select_parallel tests
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Should we standardize on a type for signal handler flags?