IIRC, we've had zero reports on whether the patch worked at all on 8.2 in an environment where the problem actually existed. So yes, some testing and feedback would be much apprecaited.
//Magnus 2010/2/8 Etienne Dube <etd...@gmail.com>: > Hi, > > We've come across this issue on 8.2.15 on a Windows Server 2008 instance. I > noticed the patch hasn't been applied to the 8.2 branch yet. Any chances that > this will be part of an eventual 8.2.16 release? Do you need more testing and > feedback before commiting the patch? > > Thanks, > > Etienne Dube > > >> * *From*: Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> >> * *To*: Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> >> * *Cc*: Tsutomu Yamada <tsut...@sraoss.co.jp>, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Dave >> Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> >> * *Subject*: Re: [PATCH] "could not reattach to shared memory" on >> Windows >> * *Date*: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:14:08 +0200 >> * *Message-id*: >> <9837222c0908110814n414b2fcbxcaf7c0e1fcc05...@mail.gmail.com >> <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-08/msg00894.php>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 16:30, Magnus Hagander<mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 19:33, Magnus Hagander<mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:58, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >>> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> >>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >>>>> 8.2 as well, no? >> >>> >> >>>> 8.2 has a different shmem implementation - the one that emulates sysv >> >>>> shmem. The patch will need to be changed around for that, and I >> >>>> haven't looked at that. It may be worthwhile to do that, but it's a >> >>>> separate patch, so let's get it out in 8.3 and 8.4 first. >> >>> >> >>> If it's at all hard to do, I could see deprecating 8.2 for Windows >> >>> instead. >> >> >> >> I haven't looked at how much work it would be at all yet. So let's do >> >> that before we decide to deprecate anything. As mentioned downthread, >> >> 8.2 is a very widespread release, and we really want to avoid >> >> deprecating it. >> > >> > Here's an attempt at a backport to 8.2. I haven't examined it in >> > detail, but it passes "make check" on mingw. >> > >> > Comments? >> >> I've also built a binary that should be copy:able on top of an 8.2.13 >> installation made from the standard installer, to test this feature. >> Anybody on 8.2 on Windows, please give it a shot and let us know how >> it works. >> >> http://www.hagander.net/pgsql/postgres_exe_virtualalloc_8_2.zip >> >> >> -- >> Magnus Hagander >> > >> Me: http://www.hagander.net/ >> Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ >> >> > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
