| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm |
| Date: | 2009-05-05 09:53:40 |
| Message-ID: | 4A000CA4.9@hagander.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> I didn't mean race condition between backends. I meant against a
>> potential other thread started by a loaded DLL for initialization.
>> (Again, things like antivirus are known to do this, and we do see these
>> issues more often if AV is present for example)
>
> I don't understand this. How can memory allocated by a completely separate
> process affect what happens to a backend? I mean, if an antivirus is running,
> surely it does not run on the backend's process? Or does it?
Anti[something] software regularly injects code into other processes,
yes. Either by creating a thread in the process using
CreateRemoteThread() or by using techniques similar to LD_PRELOAD.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurent Laborde | 2009-05-05 10:20:01 | Re: [HACKERS] high shared buffer and swap |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2009-05-05 09:50:28 | Re: windows shared memory error |