Re: shmctl portability problem

> The easy "fix" of taking EIDRM to be an allowable return code scares
> me.  At least on HPUX, the documented implication of this return code
> is that the shmem segment is marked for deletion but is not yet gone
> because there are still processes attached to it.  That would be
> exactly the scenario after a postmaster crash and manual "ipcrm" if
> there were any old backends still alive.  So, it seems to me that
> accepting EIDRM would defeat the entire point of this test, at least
> on some platforms.
> 
> Comments?  Is 2.4.7 simply broken and returning the wrong errno?
> If not, what should we do?

Seems we have to contact linux kernel guys or dig into the kernel
ourselves to see why that is being returned.  I do have EIDRM in BSD/OS.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026