Обсуждение: postgres crashes - could not reattach to shared memory

On 02/05/10 12:57 PM, Sofer, Yuval wrote: <blockquote
cite="mid:2C0926ABD16BB641A8E2F11A5492004227832AFF88@PHXCCRPRD01.adprod.bmc.com"type="cite"><style>
 
<!--/* Font Definitions */@font-face{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face{font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}/* Style Definitions */p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal,
div.MsoNormal{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink{mso-style-priority:99;color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed{mso-style-priority:99;color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText{mso-style-priority:99;mso-style-link:"Plain Text
Char";margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle17{mso-style-type:personal-compose;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext;}
span.PlainTextChar{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";mso-style-priority:99;mso-style-link:"Plain
Text";font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1{size:8.5in 11.0in;margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1{page:Section1;}
--> </style><div class="Section1"><br /><p class="MsoPlainText">PG "FATAL:  could not reattach to shared memory
(key=5432001,addr=02100000): Invalid argument.<p class="MsoPlainText"> <br /></div></blockquote><font face="Courier
New,Courier, monospace">On windows this kind of issue, generally happens due to Firewall/Antivirus Software.<br /><br
/>Please try with disabling the firewall/antivirus software and restart the PostgreSQL.<br /><br /> Following is a
thread,which has good discussion on it:<br /><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-general@postgresql.org/msg132613.html">http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-general@postgresql.org/msg132613.html</a><br
/><br/></font><br /> -- <br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Thanks & Regards,
 
Vibhor Kumar.

</pre>

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Sofer, Yuval <Yuval_Sofer@bmc.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> Postgres crashes with -
>
>
>
> PG "FATAL:  could not reattach to shared memory (key=5432001,
> addr=02100000): Invalid argument.
>
> The version is 8.2.4, the platform is win32
>
> Does someone know the reason/workaround ?

This was fixed in 8.3.8 and 8.4.1. I'm not entirely sure why it didn't
get backpatched to 8.2 - it was mentioned in the discussion about the
patch, but I don't see any reason for not back patching it stated.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/thrd5.php#00782

Even if it were fixed, you would need a much newer build than 8.2.4.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

Sofer, Yuval wrote on 02.05.2010 09:27:
> Hi
>
> Postgres crashes with -
>
> PG "FATAL: could not reattach to shared memory (key=5432001,
> addr=02100000): Invalid argument.
>
> The version is 8.2.4, the platform is win32
>
> Does someone know the reason/workaround ?
>
I think this is supposed to be fixed with 8.4

Regards
Thomas

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Sofer, Yuval <Yuval_Sofer@bmc.com> wrote:
>> PG "FATAL:� could not reattach to shared memory (key=5432001,
>> addr=02100000): Invalid argument.
>>
>> The version is 8.2.4, the platform is win32

> This was fixed in 8.3.8 and 8.4.1. I'm not entirely sure why it didn't
> get backpatched to 8.2 - it was mentioned in the discussion about the
> patch, but I don't see any reason for not back patching it stated.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/thrd5.php#00782

The patch that was being worked on at the time wouldn't have come close
to applying to 8.2, because the win32 shmem code got rearranged very
substantially for 8.3.  However, AIUI it's the same underlying
technology, so in principle it could be fixed the same way.

If we take seriously the proposition that we're still supporting 8.2
on Windows, we probably ought to do something about that.  If we don't,
we need to officially deprecate that version.

            regards, tom lane

On 5/2/10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Sofer, Yuval <Yuval_Sofer@bmc.com> wrote:
>>> PG "FATAL:  could not reattach to shared memory (key=5432001,
>>> addr=02100000): Invalid argument.
>>>
>>> The version is 8.2.4, the platform is win32
>
>> This was fixed in 8.3.8 and 8.4.1. I'm not entirely sure why it didn't
>> get backpatched to 8.2 - it was mentioned in the discussion about the
>> patch, but I don't see any reason for not back patching it stated.
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-07/thrd5.php#00782
>
> The patch that was being worked on at the time wouldn't have come close
> to applying to 8.2, because the win32 shmem code got rearranged very
> substantially for 8.3.  However, AIUI it's the same underlying
> technology, so in principle it could be fixed the same way.

Right - thats what i was expecting to see.

> If we take seriously the proposition that we're still supporting 8.2
> on Windows, we probably ought to do something about that.  If we don't,
> we need to officially deprecate that version.

That's the last non-msvc++ version. Personally I'd love to drop it so
i can get rid of mingw/msys and move entirely to vc++ for Win32 and
Win64.

I'm not so sure it's fair to the users though.


--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On 5/2/10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If we take seriously the proposition that we're still supporting 8.2
>> on Windows, we probably ought to do something about that.  If we don't,
>> we need to officially deprecate that version.

> That's the last non-msvc++ version. Personally I'd love to drop it so
> i can get rid of mingw/msys and move entirely to vc++ for Win32 and
> Win64.

> I'm not so sure it's fair to the users though.

Well, we did promise that Windows 8.2 would have the same lifespan as
8.2 on other platforms:
http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.865

The planned EOL is only a year and a half away anyway.  OTOH, if it's
doubling your effort to build Windows binary distributions, maybe
it's not worth continuing to support it.

            regards, tom lane

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
>> On 5/2/10, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm not so sure it's fair to the users though.
>
> Well, we did promise that Windows 8.2 would have the same lifespan as
> 8.2 on other platforms:
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.865

Right.

> The planned EOL is only a year and a half away anyway.  OTOH, if it's
> doubling your effort to build Windows binary distributions, maybe
> it's not worth continuing to support it.

Probably 66% of the effort in a back branch release is the 8.2
installer for me. The 8.3 MSI installer build automates (or
eliminates) much of the harder manual work, and the one-clicks are
100% automated - the effort there has been put in over the longer term
to develop them in a maintainable way.

But... unless there are other good reasons (like we actually can't fix
things without serious effort, rather than we just can't be bothered),
I don't want my time to be the cause of us dropping it early.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company