Re: Upgrade from 9.4 -> 9.5, FreeBSD 10.2-STABLE, fails on initdb - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Adrian Klaver
Subject Re: Upgrade from 9.4 -> 9.5, FreeBSD 10.2-STABLE, fails on initdb
Date
Msg-id 56B3943B.7030501@aklaver.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Upgrade from 9.4 -> 9.5, FreeBSD 10.2-STABLE, fails on initdb  (Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net>)
List pgsql-general
On 02/04/2016 10:02 AM, Karl Denninger wrote:
> $ initdb -D data-default
> The files belonging to this database system will be owned by user "pgsql".
> This user must also own the server process.
>
> The database cluster will be initialized with locale "C".
> The default database encoding has accordingly been set to "SQL_ASCII".
> The default text search configuration will be set to "english".
>
> Data page checksums are disabled.
>
> fixing permissions on existing directory data-default ... ok
> creating subdirectories ... ok
> selecting default max_connections ... 10
> selecting default shared_buffers ... 400kB
> selecting dynamic shared memory implementation ... posix
> creating configuration files ... ok
> creating template1 database in data-default/base/1 ... FATAL:  could not
> create semaphores: Invalid argument
> DETAIL:  Failed system call was semget(2, 17, 03600).
> child process exited with exit code 1
> initdb: removing contents of data directory "data-default"
> $
> $ sysctl -a|grep semm
> kern.ipc.semmsl: 512
> kern.ipc.semmnu: 256
> kern.ipc.semmns: 512
> kern.ipc.semmni: 256
>
> The system is running 9.4 just fine and the kernel configuration
> requirements shouldn't have changed for semaphores.... should they?


Where did the 9.5 version come from and was it the same source as the
9.4 version?

>
> --
> Karl Denninger
> karl@denninger.net <mailto:karl@denninger.net>
> /The Market Ticker/
> /[S/MIME encrypted email preferred]/


--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Karl Denninger
Date:
Subject: Upgrade from 9.4 -> 9.5, FreeBSD 10.2-STABLE, fails on initdb
Next
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: Asp.net 5 and EF6