Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Zdenek Kotala wrote:
>> Tom Lane napsal(a):
>>> Hmm ... AFAICS this mistake would mean that no forknum field of the
>>> requests[] array ever gets set at all, so they would stay at whatever
>>> the virgin value in the shmem segment had been. Perhaps Solaris doesn't
>>> guarantee that a shared memory block starts out as zeroes?
>>
>> For security reason any OS should clean memory pages before process
>> first touches them.
> Yeah. But it doesn't necessarily need to fill them with zeros, any
> garbage will do.
Yeah, but the observed symptoms seem to indicate that the fill is mostly
zeroes with a very occasional one. This seems less than probable.
The only theory I've thought of that seems to fit the facts is that
someplace we have a wild store that is clobbering that particular word.
Which is a pretty unpleasant thought.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
