[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I'd be the first to agree that this point is inadequately documented >>> in the code, but

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Thanks for reviewing the patch. I have added the entry for this patch in >> next CF (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/636/), feel free to mark it >> as Ready for committer if you think patch is good. > >

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > >> > Okay, attached patch just does

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > Okay, attached patch just does that and I have verified that it allows to > > start multiple services in windows. In off

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:45 AM,

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Michael Paquier < michael.paqu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:34

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > EACCES is a bit too low-level... I had in mind to check GetLastError > with only ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED, and retry only in this case, which is > the case where one postmaster is trying to access the segment of >

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:16 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > Sounds sensible, but if we want to that

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > Sounds sensible, but if we want to that route, shall we have some mechanism > > such that if retrying it for 10 times (10 is

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> >> >> Yes, same random number generation is not the

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> So as far as I can see there are two ways to resolve this issue, one is to >> retry generation of dsm name if CreateFileMapping

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> So as far as I can see there are two ways to resolve this issue, one is to >> retry generation of dsm name if CreateFileMapping

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > So as far as I can see there are two ways to resolve this issue, one is to > retry generation of dsm name if CreateFileMapping returns EACCES and second > is to append data_dir name to dsm name as the same is done for

[HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618

On 21 March 2016 at 20:46, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > No. Not as local service. The user should be the new standard user > that is created > in the system. > Which was done how, exactly? Commands run? Steps taken? PostgreSQL drops privileges once it starts, so it's