Re: Fwd: 8.0 Beta3 worked, RC1 didn't!

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> > Tom,
> > why is DC000000 so low? That's still 10Mb into the process, right? Granted, it's not high, but it's not *that* low. (A simple test program with all parameters at default get it's first address allocated at 003D2438 for me. A freshly MapViewOfFile()d memory ends up at 003f0000. If I go for a larger test block (such as 50Mb), the mapped memory is moved up to 004d0000. I get very simlar results on XP and 2003.
>
> The question is not whether it's "low", it's whether there's any
> daylight between the end of memory in a postmaster/backend image and
> where the shmem segment gets placed.
>
> On Unix, shmat() is supposed to leave a lot of room between the data
> break address and where it puts shmem, so that malloc still has room to
> play in. I suspect that Windows is willing to malloc() memory above the
> shmem segment and so thinks that it doesn't need to leave any daylight
> there, other than rounding off to a page boundary for hardware reasons.
> If the backend process malloc's a bit more space than the postmaster did
> before trying to attach, we got trouble.
>
> It's not clear to me exactly *why* the backend would allocate any more
> space than the postmaster did, but that's my working hypothesis at the
> moment.

What if we malloc 100k just before we create the postmaster segment and
then free it and see if that fixes the postgres.exe problem?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073