On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 17:31, Etienne Dube etd...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/02/2010 4:09 PM, Etienne Dube wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
IIRC, we've had zero reports on whether the patch worked at all on 8.2
in an environment where the problem actually existed. So yes, some
testing and
On 09/02/2010 4:09 PM, Etienne Dube wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
IIRC, we've had zero reports on whether the patch worked at all on 8.2
in an environment where the problem actually existed. So yes, some
testing and feedback would be much apprecaited.
//Magnus
Thanks for your quick reply.
We
Magnus Hagander wrote:
IIRC, we've had zero reports on whether the patch worked at all on 8.2
in an environment where the problem actually existed. So yes, some
testing and feedback would be much apprecaited.
//Magnus
Thanks for your quick reply.
We upgraded to Service Pack 2 and it solved
Hi,
We've come across this issue on 8.2.15 on a Windows Server 2008
instance. I noticed the patch hasn't been applied to the 8.2 branch yet.
Any chances that this will be part of an eventual 8.2.16 release? Do you
need more testing and feedback before commiting the patch?
Thanks,
Etienne
IIRC, we've had zero reports on whether the patch worked at all on 8.2
in an environment where the problem actually existed. So yes, some
testing and feedback would be much apprecaited.
//Magnus
2010/2/8 Etienne Dube etd...@gmail.com:
Hi,
We've come across this issue on 8.2.15 on a Windows
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 13:41, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 17:05, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
Dave has built binaries for 8.3.7 and 8.4.0 for this, available at:
http://developer.pgadmin.org/~dpage/postgres_exe_virtualalloc-8_3.zip
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 19:33, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:58, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
8.2 as well, no?
8.2 has a different shmem
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 16:30, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 19:33, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:58, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 17:05, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
Dave has built binaries for 8.3.7 and 8.4.0 for this, available at:
http://developer.pgadmin.org/~dpage/postgres_exe_virtualalloc-8_3.zip
http://developer.pgadmin.org/~dpage/postgres_exe_virtualalloc-8_4.zip
We would
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
It's been a couple of weeks now, and I've had a number of reports both
on-list, on-blog and in private, from people using this. I have not
yet had a single report of a problem caused by this patch (not
counting the case where there was a version
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
It's been a couple of weeks now, and I've had a number of reports both
on-list, on-blog and in private, from people using this. I have not
yet had a single report of a problem caused by
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
It's been a couple of weeks now, and I've had a number of reports both
on-list, on-blog and in private, from
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:45, Dave Pagedp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
It's been a couple of weeks now, and I've had
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
Has anyone reported the problem on 8.2?
Yes. I've seen reports of it all the way back to 8.0. It does seem to
have increased in frequently with Win2003 and Win2008 as the server
platforms, which means the newer
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
8.2 as well, no?
8.2 has a different shmem implementation - the one that emulates sysv
shmem. The patch will need to be changed around for that, and I
haven't looked at that. It may
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
8.2 as well, no?
8.2 has a different shmem implementation - the one that emulates sysv
shmem. The patch will need to
Dave Page wrote:
If it's at all hard to do, I could see deprecating 8.2 for Windows
instead.
I could most definitely agree with that on a personal level - no more
Mingw/msys builds to maintain :-)
Alas, it's probably not practical to drop it without inconveniencing a
great many Windows
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
I hope you're not suggesting we drop Mingw/MSys as a build platform, even if
you personally don't want to build with it. I would have found it much
harder to do parallel restore for Windows (which works quite differently
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:58, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
8.2 as well, no?
8.2 has a different shmem implementation - the one that emulates sysv
shmem. The patch will need to
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:04, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 08:04, Tsutomu Yamadatsut...@sraoss.co.jp wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for correcting patch.
However, I think the following block have to use VirualFree*Ex*().
(yes, this should never happen, maybe
Hello,
Thank you for correcting patch.
However, I think the following block have to use VirualFree*Ex*().
(yes, this should never happen, maybe there is actually no problem.
but for logical correctness)
+ if (address != UsedShmemSegAddr)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Should
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 08:04, Tsutomu Yamadatsut...@sraoss.co.jp wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for correcting patch.
However, I think the following block have to use VirualFree*Ex*().
(yes, this should never happen, maybe there is actually no problem.
but for logical correctness)
That is
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 14:06, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:20, Tsutomu Yamadatsut...@sraoss.co.jp wrote:
Hello,
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:20, Tsutomu Yamadatsut...@sraoss.co.jp wrote:
Hello,
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
reattach to shared memory.
Can this be added to
Hello,
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
reattach to shared memory.
Can this be added to CommitFest ?
Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 6:22 AM, Tsutomu Yamadatsut...@sraoss.co.jp wrote:
Hello,
This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
reattach to shared memory.
Can this be added to CommitFest ?
Patches for CommitFest should be added here:
Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
reattach to shared memory.
Can this be added to CommitFest ?
Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I think
this should be backpatched all the way back to 8.2.
Some notes about
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
reattach to shared memory.
Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I think
this should be backpatched all the way back to 8.2.
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
reattach to shared memory.
Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I think
this should be backpatched all
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
reattach to shared memory.
Can this be added to CommitFest ?
Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I think
this should be backpatched all the way back
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Since this fixes a very annoying bug present in older versions, I think
this should be backpatched all the way back to 8.2.
Agreed, but first we need some evidence that it actually fixes the
problem. How can we acquire such
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Alvaro
Herreraalvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
reattach to shared memory.
Since this fixes a very
On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
This patch using VirtualAlloc()/VirtualFree() to avoid failing in
reattach to shared memory.
Since this fixes a very
Jaime Casanova wrote:
- identify some people with the problem and talk to them for: 1) get a
way to reproduce the error (a lot dificult, IIRC we try a few times i
fail to fail) or 2) get their support for test
For back-patching, we'd be maybe even more interested in getting people
who *don't*
34 matches
Mail list logo
