Re: "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm
Date: 2009-05-05 01:38:10
Message-ID: 20090505013810.GD3476@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander wrote:

> I didn't mean race condition between backends. I meant against a
> potential other thread started by a loaded DLL for initialization.
> (Again, things like antivirus are known to do this, and we do see these
> issues more often if AV is present for example)

I don't understand this. How can memory allocated by a completely separate
process affect what happens to a backend? I mean, if an antivirus is running,
surely it does not run on the backend's process? Or does it?

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Saito 2009-05-05 02:02:10 Re: Unicode string literals versus the world
Previous Message Mark Wong 2009-05-05 00:49:02 community equipment