Re: [HACKERS] "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm

2009-05-05 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander writes: > One proposed fix is to allocate a fairly large block of memory in the > postmaster just before we get the shared memory, and then free it right > away. The effect should be to push down the shared memory segment > further in the address space. I have no enthusiasm for do

Re: [HACKERS] "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm

2009-05-05 Thread Magnus Hagander
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> I didn't mean race condition between backends. I meant against a >> potential other thread started by a loaded DLL for initialization. >> (Again, things like antivirus are known to do this, and we do see these >> issues more often if AV is presen

Re: [HACKERS] "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm

2009-05-04 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Magnus Hagander wrote: > I didn't mean race condition between backends. I meant against a > potential other thread started by a loaded DLL for initialization. > (Again, things like antivirus are known to do this, and we do see these > issues more often if AV is present for example) I don't unders

Re: [HACKERS] "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm

2009-05-04 Thread Magnus Hagander
Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander writes: >> Somebody else mentioned, and IIRC I talked to Dave about this before, >> that this could be because the address is no longer available. The >> reason for this could be some kind of race condition in the backends >> starting - the address is available wh

Re: [HACKERS] "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm

2009-05-04 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander writes: > Somebody else mentioned, and IIRC I talked to Dave about this before, > that this could be because the address is no longer available. The > reason for this could be some kind of race condition in the backends > starting - the address is available when the postmaster star

Re: [HACKERS] "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm

2009-05-04 Thread Magnus Hagander
Tom Lane wrote: > vaquita has an interesting report today: > http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=vaquita&dt=2009-05-01%2020:00:06 > > Partway through the contrib tests, for absolutely no visible reason > whatsoever, connections start to fail with > FATAL: could not reattach to share

Re: [HACKERS] "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm

2009-05-02 Thread Dave Page
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I assume vaquita's configuration hasn't changed recently (Dave?) > so this seems to put the lie to the theory we've taken refuge in > that it's caused by bad antivirus software.  I don't see that it > gets us any closer to a solution though. Well

[HACKERS] "could not reattach to shared memory" captured in buildfarm

2009-05-02 Thread Tom Lane
vaquita has an interesting report today: http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=vaquita&dt=2009-05-01%2020:00:06 Partway through the contrib tests, for absolutely no visible reason whatsoever, connections start to fail with FATAL: could not reattach to shared memory (key=364, addr=0292