On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 04:54:32PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 04:32:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >>On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> > >>>On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 02:55:39PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >>>> > >>>>Back in April '05, someone posted a thread about PostgreSQL within > >>>>FreeBSD > >>>>jails: > >>>> > >>>>http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/stable/2005-04/0837.html > >>>> > >>>>At the time (and to date) I reported that I was running several > >>>>PostgreSQL > >>>>daemons, all on the same port, using FreeBSD 4.x, and all within a jail > >>>>each ... and I continue to do this without any problems ... > >>>> > >>>>Today, on our new FreeBSD 6.x machine, I am now experiencing the same > >>>>problem that Alexander originally reported ... > >>>> > >>>>Its not PostgreSQL related ... I'm running 4x7.4 servers on a FreeBSD > >>>>4.x > >>>>box, all on the same port ... here, I'm trying to run 2x7.4 servers on a > >>>>FreeBSD RELENG_6 box ... > >>>> > >>>>So, something has changed with FreeBSD 6's (and, according to the above > >>>>thread, 5's) use of shared memory and semaphores that is breaking the > >>>>ability to do this ... something that did work as hoped in FreeBSD 4 ... > >>> > >>>See jail(8)? > >> > >>If you are referring to: > >> > >> security.jail.sysvipc_allowed > >> This MIB entry determines whether or not processes within a jail > >> have access to System V IPC primitives. In the current jail > >> imple- > >> mentation, System V primitives share a single namespace across > >> the > >> host and jail environments, meaning that processes within a jail > >> would be able to communicate with (and potentially interfere > >> with) > >> processes outside of the jail, and in other jails. As such, > >> this > >> functionality is disabled by default, but can be enabled by > >> setting > >> this MIB entry to 1. > >> > >>That wording hasn't changed since FreeBSD4.x, so you are saying that > >>FreeBSD6.x has become *less* stable/secure in this regard then FreeBSD 4.x > >>was? Seems an odd direction to go ... > > > >No, as you say the wording hasn't changed: "meaning that processes > >within a jail would be able to communicate with (and potentially > >interfere with) processes outside of the jail, and in other jails.". > >It looks like your postgresql's are doing this. > > Right, but why are they doing it *consistently* in FreeBSD 6.x, when they > never did it in FreeBSD 4.x? I have postmaster processes running on the > FreeBSD box as far back as November 27th, 2005 ... and have *never* > experienced this problem ... so it isn't PostgreSQL that has changed, > something in FreeBSD has changed :(
You'll need to do some debugging to find out which of the two causes of EINVAL are true here (or some undocumented cause). Kris
pgpmkIkCPLwRS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
