Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VbtFY-0000ir-UM for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:29:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VbtFY-0000AN-C5 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:29:28 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VbtFW-00008D-95 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:29:26 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VbtFT-0003Nm-Ov for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:29:25 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9VETH8o022876; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:29:17 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Andres Freund , Heikki Linnakangas , Andrew Dunstan , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Something fishy happening on frogmouth In-reply-to: References: <6557.1383073940@sss.pgh.pa.us> <27889.1383139602@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20131030133718.GB11429@awork2.anarazel.de> <28492.1383140966@sss.pgh.pa.us> <527223E8.2020207@vmware.com> <20131031095021.GA31628@alap2.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:06:48 -0400" Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:29:17 -0400 Message-ID: <22875.1383229757@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:50 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2013-10-31 11:33:28 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> Wait, that sounds horrible. If you kill -9 the server, and then rm -rf >>> $PGDATA, the shared memory segment is leaked until next reboot? >> Our main shared memory segment works the same way, doesn't it? And it >> has for a long time. > It does, and what's the alternative, anyway? Well, what we expect from the existing shmem code is that restarting the postmaster will clean things up, ie find and destroy the leaked shmem. It sounds to me like this may not work like that, in which case I agree with Heikki that it's not really acceptable. Maybe, rather than trying to make the control segment's name random, we should derive it from the data directory inode number, or some such? That way we could find it reliably during restart. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers