On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:35, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 16:23, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> What's not clear to me is whether the section title means that only >>> certain handles have this guarantee, and if so whether we have to worry >>> about running into ones that don't. > >> I think it is pretty clear it does - the section has a list of >> different handles at the bottom. What we're using is a File Mapping >> Object, which is not on that list. And which is, AFAICT, not a user or >> gdi handle. > >> That doesn't mean it's not guaranteed to be in the 32-bit space, but >> I'm pretty sure that specific page doesn't guarantee it. > > Well, the patch as-applied is fine with me. I just wanted to be sure > we'd considered the alternatives, especially in view of the fact that > we have not seen any clear failures of the previous coding.
Check. > The reason this came to mind was > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2010-11/msg00128.php > which looks for all the world like a handle transmission failure > --- but that person claims to be running Win32, so unless he's > wrong, this particular issue doesn't explain his problem. Yeah. Error 6 is the infamous "the handle is invalid", which says very very little about what's actually the problem. It could be that it gets the wrong handle over the wire, but it seems fairly unlikely. Since we're talking file handles, I'm willing to start by going down the usual road of suspecting antivirus/antispyware if it's there... -- 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
