Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>>> o Allow the shared memory address to be configured via GUC
>>> This is something we knew might be required and now I think it is
>>> required. Using a fixed address was always pretty crazy.
>>
>> I see no proof of that at all in this bug report. The postmaster has
>> evidently managed to create the segment, so the address per se is not
>> the problem.
> Really? You do realize we just choose a fixed address on Win32, right?
I didn't say that might not be a problem; I said this bug report doesn't
prove that it's a problem. (And perhaps more to the point, I doubt
adding such a GUC var would fix this report.)
regards, tom lane
