Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vbh24-0004OO-As for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:26:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vbh23-00079W-01 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:26:43 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vbh20-00079K-9z for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:26:40 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vbh1y-0006Sw-55 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 01:26:39 +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 r9V1QVj4008401; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:26:31 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Andres Freund , 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> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:52:49 -0400" Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:26:31 -0400 Message-ID: <8400.1383182791@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 Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> If it *isn't* about the main memory segment, what the hell are we doing >> creating random addon segments during bootstrap? None of the DSM code >> should even get control at this point, IMO. > Here's a short summary of what I posted back in August: at system > startup time, the postmaster creates one dynamic shared segment, > called the control segment. Well, as I've pointed out already in this thread, the postmaster does not execute during bootstrap, which makes me think this code is getting called from the wrong place. What possible reason is there to create add-on shm segments in bootstrap mode? I'm even dubious that we should create them in standalone backends, because there will be no other process to share them with. I'm inclined to think this initialization should be moved to the actual postmaster (and I mean postmaster.c) from wherever it is now. That might fix the not-so-random name choice in itself, but if it doesn't, then we could consider where to move the random-seed-initialization step to. 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