Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:47:34 +0100
From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Something fishy happening on frogmouth
Message-ID: <20131030124734.GA11429@awork2.anarazel.de>
References: <6557.1383073940@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmob859sdnDuHAF31BE55qEoREnCzzWeqDbgkNB0d_F+zmA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+Tgmob859sdnDuHAF31BE55qEoREnCzzWeqDbgkNB0d_F+zmA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 2013-10-30 08:45:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> If I'm reading this correctly, the last three runs on frogmouth have
> all failed, and all of them have failed with a complaint about,
> specifically, Global/PostgreSQL.851401618.  Now, that really shouldn't
> be happening, because the code to choose that number looks like this:
> 
>         dsm_control_handle = random();
> 
> One possibility that occurs to me is that if, for some reason, we're
> using the same handle every time on Windows, and if Windows takes a
> bit of time to reclaim the segment after the postmaster exits (which
> is not hard to believe given some previous Windows behavior I've
> seen), then running the postmaster lots of times in quick succession
> (as initdb does) might fail.  I dunno what that has to do with the
> patch, though.

Could it be that we haven't primed the random number generator with the
time or something like that yet?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund	                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers