Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > A brief look through the code and some reading between the lines of the > documentation shows that it only cleans up shared memory segments that > are no longer attached to, but there is no such check for semaphores.
Oh, interesting. It had occurred to me that we might be able to dodge this issue if we started to recommend using unnamed POSIX semaphores instead of SysV. (Obviously we'd want to check performance, but it's at least a plausible alternative.) I had not wanted to go there if it meant that we could have silent loss of SysV shmem with no other symptoms, because as I said upthread, I'm concerned about that breaking the multiple-postmaster interlock. However, if the cleanup kills only semaphores and not attached-to shmem, then that objection goes away and this becomes something we should seriously consider. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers