On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 17:31, Etienne Dube wrote:
> On 09/02/2010 4:09 PM, Etienne Dube wrote:
>>
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>
>>> IIRC, we've had zero reports on whether the patch worked at all on 8.2
>>> in an environment where the problem actually existed. So yes, some
>>> testing and feedbac
On 09/02/2010 4:09 PM, Etienne Dube wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
IIRC, we've had zero reports on whether the patch worked at all on 8.2
in an environment where the problem actually existed. So yes, some
testing and feedback would be much apprecaited.
//Magnus
Thanks for your quick reply.
We
Magnus Hagander wrote:
IIRC, we've had zero reports on whether the patch worked at all on 8.2
in an environment where the problem actually existed. So yes, some
testing and feedback would be much apprecaited.
//Magnus
Thanks for your quick reply.
We upgraded to Service Pack 2 and it solved
IIRC, we've had zero reports on whether the patch worked at all on 8.2
in an environment where the problem actually existed. So yes, some
testing and feedback would be much apprecaited.
//Magnus
2010/2/8 Etienne Dube :
> Hi,
>
> We've come across this issue on 8.2.15 on a Windows Server 2008 inst
Hi,
We've come across this issue on 8.2.15 on a Windows Server 2008
instance. I noticed the patch hasn't been applied to the 8.2 branch yet.
Any chances that this will be part of an eventual 8.2.16 release? Do you
need more testing and feedback before commiting the patch?
Thanks,
Etienne Du
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 16:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 19:33, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Magnus Hagander writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> 8.2 as well, no?
>>>
8.2 has a different shmem
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 19:33, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
8.2 as well, no?
>>
>>> 8.2 has a different shmem implementation - the one that emulates sysv
>>> shmem. The pat
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 13:41, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 17:05, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Dave has built binaries for 8.3.7 and 8.4.0 for this, available at:
>>
>> http://developer.pgadmin.org/~dpage/postgres_exe_virtualalloc-8_3.zip
>> http://developer.pgadmin.org/~dpage/pos
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 8.2 as well, no?
>
>> 8.2 has a different shmem implementation - the one that emulates sysv
>> shmem. The patch will need to be changed around for that, and I
>> haven't l
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I hope you're not suggesting we drop Mingw/MSys as a build platform, even if
> you personally don't want to build with it. I would have found it much
> harder to do parallel restore for Windows (which works quite differently
> from Unix, an
Dave Page wrote:
If it's at all hard to do, I could see deprecating 8.2 for Windows
instead.
I could most definitely agree with that on a personal level - no more
Mingw/msys builds to maintain :-)
Alas, it's probably not practical to drop it without inconveniencing a
great many Windows
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 8.2 as well, no?
>
>> 8.2 has a different shmem implementation - the one that emulates sysv
>> shmem. The patch will need to be changed around for that, and I
>> haven't
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 8.2 as well, no?
> 8.2 has a different shmem implementation - the one that emulates sysv
> shmem. The patch will need to be changed around for that, and I
> haven't looked at that. It may be worthwhile to do that, but it'
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Has anyone reported the problem on 8.2?
>
> Yes. I've seen reports of it all the way back to 8.0. It does seem to
> have increased in frequently with Win2003 and Win2008 as the server
> platforms, which means the newer versions have had a h
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:45, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Magnus Hagander writes:
It's been a couple of weeks now, and I've had a number of reports both
on-list, on-blog and in private,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
>>> It's been a couple of weeks now, and I've had a number of reports both
>>> on-list, on-blog and in private, from people using this. I have not
>>> yet had a singl
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> It's been a couple of weeks now, and I've had a number of reports both
>> on-list, on-blog and in private, from people using this. I have not
>> yet had a single report of a problem caused by this patch (not
>> counting th
Magnus Hagander writes:
> It's been a couple of weeks now, and I've had a number of reports both
> on-list, on-blog and in private, from people using this. I have not
> yet had a single report of a problem caused by this patch (not
> counting the case where there was a version mismatch - can't fau
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 17:05, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Dave has built binaries for 8.3.7 and 8.4.0 for this, available at:
>
> http://developer.pgadmin.org/~dpage/postgres_exe_virtualalloc-8_3.zip
> http://developer.pgadmin.org/~dpage/postgres_exe_virtualalloc-8_4.zip
>
>
> We would like as many p
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:04, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 08:04, Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Thank you for correcting patch.
>> However, I think the following block have to use VirualFree*Ex*().
>>
>> (yes, this should never happen, maybe there is actually no problem
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 08:04, Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for correcting patch.
> However, I think the following block have to use VirualFree*Ex*().
>
> (yes, this should never happen, maybe there is actually no problem.
> but for logical correctness)
That is definitely correct.
Hello,
Thank you for correcting patch.
However, I think the following block have to use VirualFree*Ex*().
(yes, this should never happen, maybe there is actually no problem.
but for logical correctness)
>+ if (address != UsedShmemSegAddr)
>+ {
>+ /*
>+ * Sho
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 14:06, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:20, Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> > Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> >
>> > > This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
>> > > reattach to shared memory.
>> > >
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:20, Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> >
> > > This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
> > > reattach to shared memory.
> > >
> > > Can this be added to CommitFest ?
> >
> > Since this fi
Hello,
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>
> > This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
> > reattach to shared memory.
> >
> > Can this be added to CommitFest ?
>
> Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I think
> this shou
Jaime Casanova wrote:
> - identify some people with the problem and talk to them for: 1) get a
> way to reproduce the error (a lot dificult, IIRC we try a few times i
> fail to fail) or 2) get their support for test
For back-patching, we'd be maybe even more interested in getting people
who *don't
On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> > Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> >> This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
>> >> reattach to shared memory.
>>
>> > Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Alvaro
Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> > Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> >> This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
>> >> reattach to shared memory.
>>
>> > Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older vers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I think
>> this should be backpatched all the way back to 8.2.
>
> Agreed, but first we need some evidence that it actually fixes the
> problem. How can we acquire such evidence?
Apply to
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>
>> This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
>> reattach to shared memory.
>>
>> Can this be added to CommitFest ?
>
> Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I think
> this should be backpatched all t
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> >> This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
> >> reattach to shared memory.
>
> > Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I think
> > this should be backpatched all the way back t
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
>> reattach to shared memory.
> Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I think
> this should be backpatched all the way back to 8.2.
Agreed, but first we n
Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
> reattach to shared memory.
>
> Can this be added to CommitFest ?
Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I think
this should be backpatched all the way back to 8.2.
Some notes abo
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
> reattach to shared memory.
>
> Can this be added to CommitFest ?
Patches for CommitFest should be added here:
http://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_
Hello,
This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
reattach to shared memory.
Can this be added to CommitFest ?
Recent threads in pgsql-bugs are
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2009-07/msg00036.php
This fix is almost same as previous patch. debug code is delet
35 matches
Mail list logo
