| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | freebsd-stable(at)freebsd(dot)org, Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |
| Date: | 2006-04-03 01:06:25 |
| Message-ID: | 26524.1144026385@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, even before doing that, you should look at "ipcs -s" output to try
>> to get a clue what's going on. The EINVAL failures may be because the
>> second postmaster to start deletes the semaphores created by the first
>> one. You could easily see this happening in before-and-after ipcs data
>> if so.
> You are right ...
OK, could we see strace (or whatever BSD calls it) output for the second
postmaster? I'd like to see exactly what results it's getting for the
kernel calls it makes during IpcSemaphoreCreate.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-03 01:20:02 | Re: Suggestion: Which Binary? |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-04-03 01:00:26 | Re: WAL Bypass for indexes |