Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Amit Kapila writes: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> By definition, the address range we're trying to reuse worked successfully >> in the postmaster process. I don't see how forcing a specific address >> could do anything but

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> I think the idea of retrying process creation (and I definitely agree >> with Tom and Magnus that we have to retry process creation, not just >> individual mappings) is a good

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> By definition, the address range we're trying to reuse worked successfully >>> in the postmaster process.

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> By definition, the address range we're trying to reuse worked successfully >> in the postmaster process. I don't see how forcing a specific address >> could do anything but

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > By definition, the address range we're trying to reuse worked successfully > in the postmaster process. I don't see how forcing a specific address > could do anything but create an additional risk of postmaster startup >

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Robert Haas writes: > I think the idea of retrying process creation (and I definitely agree > with Tom and Magnus that we have to retry process creation, not just > individual mappings) is a good place to start. Now if we find that we > are having to retry frequently, then

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > Agreed. By the way, while browsing about this problem, I found that > one other open source (nginx) has used a solution similar to what > Andres was proposing upthread to solve this problem. Refer: >

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: >> Sure. I think it is slightly tricky because specs don't say clearly >> how ASLR can impact the behavior of any API and in my last attempt I >> could not reproduce the issue. >

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Amit Kapila writes: > Sure. I think it is slightly tricky because specs don't say clearly > how ASLR can impact the behavior of any API and in my last attempt I > could not reproduce the issue. > I can try to do basic verification with the patch you have proposed, > but

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Tom Lane

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Amit Kapila writes: >> > >> >> I

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Amit Kapila writes: > > > >> I think the same problem can happen during reattach as well. > >> Basically,

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: > >> I think the same problem can happen during reattach as well. >> Basically, MapViewOfFileEx can fail to load image at predefined >> address (UsedShmemSegAddr). > > Once we've

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Amit Kapila writes: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I took a quick look at this, and it seems rather beside the point. > What I understood from the randomization shm allocation behavior due > to ASLR is that when we try to

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: >> Okay, I have added the comment to explain the same. I have also >> modified the patch to adjust the looping as per your suggestion. > > I took a quick look at this, and it seems

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Amit Kapila writes: > Okay, I have added the comment to explain the same. I have also > modified the patch to adjust the looping as per your suggestion. I took a quick look at this, and it seems rather beside the point. You can't just loop inside an already-forked

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 02/06/17 15:37, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> No, it is to avoid calling free of memory which is not reserved on >> retry. See the comment: >> + * On the first try, release memory region reservation that was made

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On 02/06/17 15:37, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Petr Jelinek > wrote: >> On 01/06/17 15:25, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Robert Haas writes: So, are you going to, perhaps, commit this? Or who is picking this up? >>>

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 01/06/17 15:25, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> So, are you going to, perhaps, commit this? Or who is picking this up? >> >>> /me knows precious little about Windows. >> >>

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 05:50:45PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > wrote: > > I guessed that the reason Noah suggested 1 - 5 seconds of retry is based > > on the expectation that the address space might be freed

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On 01/06/17 15:25, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> So, are you going to, perhaps, commit this? Or who is picking this up? > >> /me knows precious little about Windows. > > I'm not going to be the one to commit this either, but seems like someone > should. >

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Robert Haas writes: > So, are you going to, perhaps, commit this? Or who is picking this up? > /me knows precious little about Windows. I'm not going to be the one to commit this either, but seems like someone should. regards, tom lane -- Sent

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I would definitely suggest putting it in HEAD (and thus, v10) for a while to > get some real world exposure before backpatching. But if it does work out > well in the end, then we can certainly consider backpatching

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Amit Kapila >> wrote: >> > I think the real question here is,

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Amit Kapila > wrote: > > I think the real question here is, shall we backpatch this fix or we > > want to do this just in Head or we want to consider it

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > I think the real question here is, shall we backpatch this fix or we > want to do this just in Head or we want to consider it as a new > feature for PostgreSQL-11. I think it should be fixed in Head and the > change

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila >> Yes, I also share this opinion, the shm attach failures are due to >> randomization

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: >> Yes, I also share this opinion, the shm attach failures are due to >> randomization behavior, so sleep won't help much. So, I will change >> the patch to use 100 retries unless

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila > Yes, I also share this opinion, the shm attach failures are due to > randomization behavior, so sleep won't help much. So, I will change the > patch to use 100 retries unless people

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

Amit Kapila writes: > Yes, I also share this opinion, the shm attach failures are due to > randomization behavior, so sleep won't help much. So, I will change > the patch to use 100 retries unless people have other opinions. Sounds about right to me.

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:41:19AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> Indeed, pgrename() does so with a 100ms sleep time between each >> iteration. Perhaps we could do that and limit to 50 iterations? > > pgrename() is

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:41:19AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > wrote: > > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Noah Misch > >> Ten feels

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Noah Misch >> Ten feels low to me. The value should be be low enough so users don't give >> up and

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Noah Misch > Ten feels low to me. The value should be be low enough so users don't give > up and assume a permanent hang, but there's little advantage to making it > lower. > I'd set it such that

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 09:29:11AM -0400, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > So it seems both you and Tom are leaning towards some sort of retry > > mechanism for shm reattach on Windows. I also think that is a viable > >

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> So it seems both you and Tom are leaning towards some sort of retry >> mechanism for shm reattach on Windows. I also think that is

Re: retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > So it seems both you and Tom are leaning towards some sort of retry > mechanism for shm reattach on Windows. I also think that is a viable > option to negate the impact of ASLR. Attached patch does that. Note >

retry shm attach for windows (WAS: Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken)

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Noah Misch wrote: > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 02:30:18PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-04-15 17:24:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Andres Freund writes: >> > > On 2017-04-15 17:09:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> > >> Why

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 02:30:18PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-15 17:24:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > > On 2017-04-15 17:09:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Why doesn't Windows' ability to map the segment into the new process > > >>

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: >> Yeah, that's right. Today, I have spent some time to analyze how and >> where retry logic is required. I think there are two places where we >> need this retry logic, one is

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Amit Kapila writes: > Yeah, that's right. Today, I have spent some time to analyze how and > where retry logic is required. I think there are two places where we > need this retry logic, one is if we fail to reserve the memory > (pgwin32_ReserveSharedMemoryRegion) and

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: >> On 25 Apr. 2017 13:37, "Heikki Linnakangas" wrote: >>> For some data shared memory structures, that store no pointers, we wouldn't >>> need to insist that they

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 25 April 2017 at 22:07, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: >> On 25 Apr. 2017 13:37, "Heikki Linnakangas" wrote: >>> For some data shared memory structures, that store no pointers, we wouldn't >>> need to insist that they are

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Craig Ringer writes: > On 25 Apr. 2017 13:37, "Heikki Linnakangas" wrote: >> For some data shared memory structures, that store no pointers, we wouldn't >> need to insist that they are mapped to the same address in every backend, >> though. In particular,

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 25 Apr. 2017 13:37, "Heikki Linnakangas" wrote: For some data shared memory structures, that store no pointers, we wouldn't need to insist that they are mapped to the same address in every backend, though. In particular, shared_buffers. It wouldn't eliminate the problem,

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 04/24/2017 09:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote: On 2017-04-24 14:43:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: (We have accepted that kind of overhead for DSM segments, but the intention I think is to allow only very trivial data structures in the DSM segments. Losing compiler pointer type checking for data

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 25 Apr. 2017 02:51, "Andres Freund" wrote: On 2017-04-24 11:08:48 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-24 23:14:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > > In the long run we'll probably be forced toward threading or far pointers. > > I'll vote for removing the windows port,

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-24 11:08:48 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-24 23:14:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > > In the long run we'll probably be forced toward threading or far pointers. > > I'll vote for removing the windows port, before going for that. And I'm > not even joking. Just to clarify:

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-24 14:43:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > (We have accepted that kind of overhead for DSM segments, but the > intention I think is to allow only very trivial data structures in > the DSM segments. Losing compiler pointer type checking for data > structures like the lock or PGPROC tables

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-24 23:14:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> In the long run we'll probably be forced toward threading or far pointers. > I'll vote for removing the windows port, before going for that. And I'm > not even joking. Me too. We used to *have*

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Hi, On 2017-04-24 14:25:34 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > Error code 87 means "invalid parameter". Some googling [1] indicates > such an error occurs if we pass the out-of-range address to > MapViewOfFileEx. Another possible theory is that we must pass the > address as multiple of the system's

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 24 April 2017 at 16:55, Amit Kapila wrote: > Another thing I have tried is to just start the server by setting > RandomizedBaseAddress="TRUE". I have tried about 15-20 times but > could not reproduce the problem related to shared memory attach. We > have tried the

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 16 April 2017 at 05:18, Andres Freund wrote: > Because of ASLR of the main executable (i.e. something like PIE). It'll > supposedly become harder (as in only running in compatibility modes) if > binaries don't enable that. It's currently disabled somewhere in the VC >

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:55 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-20 16:57:03 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> > On 2017-04-19 10:15:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Amit Kapila

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-20 16:57:03 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Agreed. I have done some further study by using VMMap tool in Windows >> and it seems to me that all 64-bit processes use address range >> (0001 ~ 07FE). I have attached two

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-20 16:57:03 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-04-19 10:15:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Amit Kapila writes: > >> > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Tom Lane

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-19 10:15:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Amit Kapila writes: > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Obviously, any such fix would be a lot more likely to be reliable in > >> 64-bit machines. There's probably not enough

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Amit Kapila writes: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Obviously, any such fix would be a lot more likely to be reliable in >> 64-bit machines. There's probably not enough daylight to be sure of >> making it work in 32-bit Windows,

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2017-04-15 17:24:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I wonder whether we could work around that by just destroying the created >>> process and trying again if we get a collision.

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-15 14:34:28 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-04-15 17:30:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > > On 2017-04-15 16:48:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> Concretely, I propose the attached patch. We'd have to put it into > > >> all supported

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-15 17:30:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-04-15 16:48:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Concretely, I propose the attached patch. We'd have to put it into > >> all supported branches, since culicidae is showing intermittent > >> "could not

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-15 17:24:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I wonder whether we could work around that by just destroying the created >> process and trying again if we get a collision. It'd be a tad >> inefficient, but hopefully collisions wouldn't happen often

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-15 16:48:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Concretely, I propose the attached patch. We'd have to put it into >> all supported branches, since culicidae is showing intermittent >> "could not reattach to shared memory" failures in all the

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-15 17:24:54 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2017-04-15 17:09:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Why doesn't Windows' ability to map the segment into the new process > >> before it executes take care of that? > > > Because of ASLR of the main

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-04-15 17:09:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Why doesn't Windows' ability to map the segment into the new process >> before it executes take care of that? > Because of ASLR of the main executable (i.e. something like PIE). Not following. Are you

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-15 17:09:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > That seems quite reasonable. I'm afraid we're going to have to figure > > out something similar, but more robust, for windows soon-ish :/ > > Why doesn't Windows' ability to map the segment into the

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > That seems quite reasonable. I'm afraid we're going to have to figure > out something similar, but more robust, for windows soon-ish :/ Why doesn't Windows' ability to map the segment into the new process before it executes take care of that? > As a

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On 2017-04-15 16:48:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > I think what may be the most effective way to proceed is to provide > > a way to force the shmem segment to be mapped at a chosen address. > > It looks like, at least on x86_64 Linux, mapping shmem at > > 0x7E00 would work

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

I wrote: > I think what may be the most effective way to proceed is to provide > a way to force the shmem segment to be mapped at a chosen address. > It looks like, at least on x86_64 Linux, mapping shmem at > 0x7E00 would work reliably. > Since we only care about this for testing

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

Andres Freund writes: > On April 14, 2017 9:42:41 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >> 2017-04-15 04:31:21.657 GMT [16792] FATAL: could not reattach to >> shared memory (key=6280001, addr=0x7f692fece000): Invalid argument >> >> Presumably, this is the same issue

Re: [HACKERS] OK, so culicidae is *still* broken

On April 14, 2017 9:42:41 PM PDT, Tom Lane wrote: >Per >https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=culicidae=2017-04-15%2004%3A00%3A02 > >2017-04-15 04:31:21.657 GMT [16792] FATAL: could not reattach to >shared memory (key=6280001, addr=0x7f692fece000): Invalid