I wrote:
> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
>> Right. But that doesn't mean it's right to call PGSharedMemoryDetach()
>> without other changes as done in Michael's proposed patch? That'll do an
>> UnmapViewOfFile() which'll fail because nothing i mapped, but still not
>> close UsedShmemSegID?
> Ah, right, I'd not noticed that he proposed changing
> CloseHandle(UsedShmemSegID) to PGSharedMemoryDetach(). The latter is
> clearly the wrong thing.
Actually, now that I look at it, it's even more obvious that this is the
wrong thing because *all the subprocess types in question already call
PGSharedMemoryDetach*. That's necessary on Unix, but I should think that
on Windows all it will do is provoke the log message:
elog(LOG, "could not unmap view of shared memory: error code %lu",
GetLastError());
Could someone confirm whether syslogger, archiver, stats collector
processes reliably produce that log message at startup on Windows?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
