Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> By definition, the address range we're trying to reuse worked successfully
>> in the postmaster process. I don't see how forcing a specific address
>> could do anything but create an additional risk of postmaster startup
>> failure.
> I think it won't create an additional risk, because the idea is that
> if we fail to map the shm segment at a predefined address, then we
> will allow the system to choose the initial address as we are doing
> now. So, it can reduce chances of doing retries.
[ shrug... ] That would just make the patch even more complicated and
hard to test. And it doesn't do anything to fix the ASLR issue.
Could we get on with trying to test something that *does* fix the
ASLR issue, like the draft patch I posted upthread?
regards, tom lane
