Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 11:07:56 -0400 From: Jason Tishler To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Initdb FATAL error shmat - Win98 Cygwin 1.5.10-3 - PostgreSQL 7.4.3 Message-ID: <20040808150755.GH55644@tishler.net> Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20040803133058 DOT GS31522 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040803133058.GS31522@cygbert.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-IsSubscribed: yes Corinna, I apologize for the delay, but I was on vacation... On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:30:58PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > I tried it and it actually only happens on 9x. I found that postgres > tries to shmat to an address which I have no idea about where it comes > from. The problem with that address is, that it's neither a multiple > of SHMLBA, nor does postgres call shmat with the SHM_RND flag. For > some reason the address is ok on NT. > > So, Jason, do you have an idea why that happens? No. > Two questions come to mind: > > - How does postgres evaluate that address I don't know. > and why does it only fail on 9x? Ditto. > - Why does postgres use a fixed address at all, instead of using NULL > to let the system decide which address to use? Ditto. I do not have access to Windows 9x and (unfortunately) have not used PostgreSQL seriously for 3 years now, so I'm not particularly motivated to work on this problem. Sorry, Jason -- PGP/GPG Key: http://www.tishler.net/jason/pubkey.asc or key servers Fingerprint: 7A73 1405 7F2B E669 C19D 8784 1AFD E4CC ECF4 8EF6 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/