| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Bryan Roberts <bryan(at)aotea(dot)co(dot)nz>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Win 32 'could not attach to proper memory at fixed address' |
| Date: | 2004-12-13 18:51:30 |
| Message-ID: | 26962.1102963890@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>> o Allow the shared memory address to be configured via GUC
>>> This is something we knew might be required and now I think it is
>>> required. Using a fixed address was always pretty crazy.
>>
>> I see no proof of that at all in this bug report. The postmaster has
>> evidently managed to create the segment, so the address per se is not
>> the problem.
> Really? You do realize we just choose a fixed address on Win32, right?
I didn't say that might not be a problem; I said this bug report doesn't
prove that it's a problem. (And perhaps more to the point, I doubt
adding such a GUC var would fix this report.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luojia Chen | 2004-12-13 18:51:37 | Re: postgresql-8.0.0 beta5 & postgresql-7.4.6 can't compile |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-12-13 18:40:14 | Re: Win 32 'could not attach to proper memory at fixed address' |