Re: Sigh, my old HPUX box is totally broken by DSM patch
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Sigh, my old HPUX box is totally broken by DSM patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20131023153532.GL2706@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Sigh, my old HPUX box is totally broken by DSM patch (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Sigh, my old HPUX box is totally broken by DSM patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > I agree with Robert that it's odd and obnoxious that the call doesn't just > return with errno = ENOSYS. However, looking in the archives turns up > this interesting historical info: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/25564.962066659@sss.pgh.pa.us Wow, well, good on HPUX for trying to run the code you told it to.. > I wonder whether, if we went back to blocking SIGSYS, we could expect that > affected calls would return ENOSYS (clearly preferable), or if that would > just lead to some very strange behavior. Other archive entries mention > that you get SIGSYS on Cygwin if the Cygwin support daemon isn't running, > so that's at least one place where we'd want to check the behavior. Would this make sense as a configure-time check, rather than initdb, to try blocking SIGSYS and checking for an ENOSYS from shm_open()? Seems preferrable to do that in a configure check rather than initdb. Thanks, Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: