Re: Sigh, my old HPUX box is totally broken by DSM patch

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sigh, my old HPUX box is totally broken by DSM patch
Date: 2013-10-23 15:35:32
Message-ID: 20131023153532.GL2706@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> I agree with Robert that it's odd and obnoxious that the call doesn't just
> return with errno = ENOSYS. However, looking in the archives turns up
> this interesting historical info:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/25564.962066659@sss.pgh.pa.us

Wow, well, good on HPUX for trying to run the code you told it to..

> I wonder whether, if we went back to blocking SIGSYS, we could expect that
> affected calls would return ENOSYS (clearly preferable), or if that would
> just lead to some very strange behavior. Other archive entries mention
> that you get SIGSYS on Cygwin if the Cygwin support daemon isn't running,
> so that's at least one place where we'd want to check the behavior.

Would this make sense as a configure-time check, rather than initdb, to
try blocking SIGSYS and checking for an ENOSYS from shm_open()? Seems
preferrable to do that in a configure check rather than initdb.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-10-23 15:56:28 Re: Sigh, my old HPUX box is totally broken by DSM patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-10-23 15:13:33 Re: Sigh, my old HPUX box is totally broken by DSM patch