On 2013-10-30 09:26:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > 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(); > > Isn't this complaining about the main shm segment, not a DSM extension?
Don't think so, that has a ":" in the name. But I think this touches a fair point, I think we need to make all the dsm error messages more distinctive. The history since this has been committed makes it likely that there will be more errors. > Also, why is the error "not enough space", rather than something about > a collision? And if this is the explanation, why didn't the previous > runs probing for allowable shmem size fail? Yea, I don't think this explains the issue but something independent that needs to be fixed. > BTW, regardless of the specific properties of random(), surely you ought > to have code in there that would cope with a name collision. There actually is code that retries, but only for EEXISTS. 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
