On 2013-10-30 08:45:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > If I'm reading this correctly, the last three runs on frogmouth have > all failed, and all of them have failed with a complaint about, > specifically, Global/PostgreSQL.851401618. Now, that really shouldn't > be happening, because the code to choose that number looks like this: > > dsm_control_handle = random(); > > One possibility that occurs to me is that if, for some reason, we're > using the same handle every time on Windows, and if Windows takes a > bit of time to reclaim the segment after the postmaster exits (which > is not hard to believe given some previous Windows behavior I've > seen), then running the postmaster lots of times in quick succession > (as initdb does) might fail. I dunno what that has to do with the > patch, though.
Could it be that we haven't primed the random number generator with the time or something like that yet? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
