Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Another problem is that postmaster children that do >>> PGSharedMemoryDetach will still have valid inherited handles for >>> the shmem segment --- does that factor into the behavior? It looks >>> to me like the CloseHandle ought to be in PGSharedMemoryDetach. > >> Not as long as the processes die. If they die, their handles go with >> them, and once the reference count goes to zero, the object goes away. > > But the syslogger process (and maybe others) is *not* supposed to die. Right. But are you saying we actually want to start up a new backend in a directory where we already have a running syslogger (and maybe others) processes, just no postmaster? I'd assume we might run into such simple things as "sharing violations" on the logfile - if nothing inside the db itself.. //Magnus
