Re: Native Windows, Apache Portable Runtime - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Native Windows, Apache Portable Runtime
Date
Msg-id 4739.1020692162@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Native Windows, Apache Portable Runtime  ("Cyril VELTER" <cyril.velter@libertysurf.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Cyril VELTER" <cyril.velter@libertysurf.fr> writes:
>     Are the PGShmemHeader fields only used by PGSharedMemoryCreate ?

Other than totalsize and freeoffset, I believe so.  I see no reason
that a particular port couldn't stick different fields in there if it
had a mind to.

>> How does that solve the problem of determining whether a *previously*
>> created shmem block is still in use?

>     Ok, I overlooked that, my proposal for PGSharedMemoryIsInUse doesn't
> make sense (and it doesn't matter on Beos because shared mem segments are
> automaticaly reaped at the end of the process).

Well, SharedMemoryIsInUse is *not* just about ensuring that the shared
memory gets reaped.  The point is to ensure that you can't start a new
postmaster until the last old backend is gone.  (Consider situations
where the parent postmaster process crashes, or perhaps is kill -9'd
by a careless DBA, but there are still active backends.  We want to
detect that situation and ensure that a new postmaster will refuse to
start.)

>> How so?  If those calls were needed before, why won't all three still
>> be needed?

>     In the current hack, I've to iterate over all sharedmem segments (system
> wide) to find the original one by name. There is a race condition here if
> several backend are starting at the same time. beos_before_backend_startup
> beos_backend_startup_failed acquire / release a semaphore which prevent
> several fork at the same time.

Does keeping the shmem segment name around solve that?  Seems like you
don't need a PGShmemHeader field for that; just store it in a static
variable.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christof Petig
Date:
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] ECPG: FETCH ALL|n FROM cursor - Memory allocation?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports