Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied” - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied”
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1L9puS4xrUvwG5x5Ue5cQtx4zhS+JByB_iCUixbvAZNCw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting sothere’s message in log: FATAL: "could not createshared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permissiondenied”  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> This is wrong, current code does well for this case. I should
> broke the code during investigating the problem.
>
> > > So, to make the windows version behave as the same,
> > > dsm_impl_windows should return false if GetLastError() ==
> > > ERROR_ALREADY_EXISTS regardless of hmap is valid. The current
> > > behavior is wrong because two or more postmaster *share* the same
> > > DSM segment instead of having their own segments.
>
> > > The patch attached will fix *both of* the problems.
>
> So, the patch fixes only the "Permission denied" case.
>

Why do you think it is bad to display even log for "Permission denied"
case?
It seems all other implementations does the same and I think it is
useful information and we should log it.  Don't you think the patch
sent by me is good enough to fix the reported issue?


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting sothere’s message in log: FATAL: "could not createshared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permissiondenied”
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2