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
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 |