Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Not likely, but I'd test it anyway. If the issue is related to AV, it's >> certainly fine - you won't be running AV on your Solaris. But more >> importantly, Unix has actual support for signals and not just the fake >> stuff we have on Win32, so it's likely that the postmaster will be >> capable of killing the child processes. > > I'm not sure what failure mode you're imagining, but the postmaster has > already verified that all the children that are supposed to be connected > to shared memory are dead before it attempts to recreate shared memory. > So the above sounds completely bogus. > > I'm still suspicious of the syslogger holding onto an inherited handle > to the shared-memory file, though that theory would seem to mean that > crash recovery would never work at all on Windows if the syslogger > were enabled. But maybe there is some additional gating factor needed > to cause the problem to manifest. Well, the syslogger is enabled by default on *all* binary installs on windows, so I think we would've seen more if it never works. I'll see if I can repro a case like it to see if the syslogger prevents the shared mem from going away when I get back to a dev box. Should be enough to just stick a sleep preventing it from stopping, right? //Magnus
