> The easy "fix" of taking EIDRM to be an allowable return code scares
> me. At least on HPUX, the documented implication of this return code
> is that the shmem segment is marked for deletion but is not yet gone
> because there are still processes attached to it. That would be
> exactly the scenario after a postmaster crash and manual "ipcrm" if
> there were any old backends still alive. So, it seems to me that
> accepting EIDRM would defeat the entire point of this test, at least
> on some platforms.
>
> Comments? Is 2.4.7 simply broken and returning the wrong errno?
> If not, what should we do?
Seems we have to contact linux kernel guys or dig into the kernel
ourselves to see why that is being returned. I do have EIDRM in BSD/OS.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
