* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > I agree with Robert that it's odd and obnoxious that the call doesn't just > return with errno = ENOSYS. However, looking in the archives turns up > this interesting historical info: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/25564.962066...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Wow, well, good on HPUX for trying to run the code you told it to..
> I wonder whether, if we went back to blocking SIGSYS, we could expect that
> affected calls would return ENOSYS (clearly preferable), or if that would
> just lead to some very strange behavior. Other archive entries mention
> that you get SIGSYS on Cygwin if the Cygwin support daemon isn't running,
> so that's at least one place where we'd want to check the behavior.
Would this make sense as a configure-time check, rather than initdb, to
try blocking SIGSYS and checking for an ENOSYS from shm_open()? Seems
preferrable to do that in a configure check rather than initdb.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
