Re: FATAL: could not reattach to shared memory (Win32)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Shelby Cain" <alyandon(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Terry Yapt" <yapt(at)technovell(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: FATAL: could not reattach to shared memory (Win32)
Date: 2007-08-24 17:50:37
Message-ID: 3091.1187977837@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> There are a few old bits of code that still use MAKE_PTR/MAKE_OFFSET,
>> but I think it's mostly just that no one's bothered to rewrite the code
>> for SHM_QUEUE linked lists. The vast majority of our shmem structures
>> use regular pointers, and have for years.

> Ah, I happened to be recently in that code so I was mislead.

IIRC, the reason for not bothering to change the SHM_QUEUE code (other
than inertia) was that it's a generic linked list package, and so if
it wasn't storing SHMEM_OFFSETs it'd be storing "void *"'s, and so there
didn't seem to be any traction to be gained in terms of compiler error
detection capability. However, if both you and Alvaro were confused
about the liveness of that coding convention, maybe it'd be worth making
a push to eliminate all trace of MAKE_PTR/MAKE_OFFSET. TODO for 8.4?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleg Bartunov 2007-08-24 17:53:23 Re: Can tsearch do some basic text mining
Previous Message Cody Pisto 2007-08-24 17:35:53 lc_collate issue