From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas DAZ SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Cc: | <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Open Items |
Date: | 2004-10-18 18:24:23 |
Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE475F3B@algol.sollentuna.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
>> o fix shared memory on Win2k terminal server
>>
>> We might be able to just mark this as not supported.
>
>I have attached a patch that I think fixes this. The problem I saw
>and fixed is, that the shmem created in a terminal services
>client is not
>visible to the console (or services.msc).
Does this actually fix the problem for you?
Because, as I have previously posted I think, it does *not* solve the
problem on any of my test machines. I still get the shmget() error
message when running from a TS session.
(Yes, I tried specifically with your patch, since I thought maybe I got
something wrong before)
I'm on Windows 2000 Server, tested both DC and non-DC machines. What are
you testing on?
Also, I don't really see how the visibility of the shmem segment
matters. We can't *create* the first instance of it, which should not
affect this at all. And if we passed that, all backends are still
execute in the same session, so there is no effect on it.
services.msc only interacts with the SCM, it has nothing at all to do
with shmem.
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-18 18:34:30 | Re: Final libpq patch? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-10-18 18:16:49 | Final libpq patch? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-18 18:34:30 | Re: Final libpq patch? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-10-18 18:16:49 | Final libpq patch? |