No really a pattern. I'm sure PG is installed in standard pure version everywhere. No domains at all. The rest is really custom (we are working remotely - each of us with different hardware, OS, software, etc...). Maybe the intel dual core has smth to do about it ?
Those are affected: My machine is: Latitude D620, T7200, 3GB RAM, Vista Business SP2, NOD32 3.2, Windows Firewall Guy 1: Latitude D620, T7200, 2GB RAM, XP Prof SP3, NOD32 3.2, OutpostFirewall Guy 2: HP T5600 3GB RAM,XP SP2, F-Internet Security 2009 Guy 3: Acer (2 core also!!), 4GB RAM, Vista Sp2, Norton Ativirus Which is 4 of 8 in the team. On 8.3 it's usable - the bug is there, but we are using pooling so it retries several times and then keeps the connection - the problem is when you try psql ... With 8.4 it's almost impossible to connect. > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:20 AM, wstrzalka<wstrza...@gmail.com> wrote: >> After upgrading to 8.4 on Vista I see no progress on the shared memory >> problem unfortunately. >> >> I think it's even worse now (previously it happened mainly when OS >> went to sleep & then was restored, now it's all the time). >> >> My log looks like this. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> FATAL: could not reattach to shared memory (key=288, addr=02A00000): >> 487 >> 2009-07-06 11:39:45 CESTLOG: could not receive data from client: >> Unknown winsock error 10061 >> 2009-07-06 11:39:45 CESTLOG: unexpected EOF on client connection >> FATAL: could not reattach to shared memory (key=288, addr=02A00000): >> 487 >> 2009-07-06 11:40:20 CESTLOG: could not receive data from client: >> Unknown winsock error 10061 >> 2009-07-06 11:40:20 CESTLOG: unexpected EOF on client connection >> 2009-07-06 11:40:20 CESTLOG: could not receive data from client: >> Unknown winsock error 10061 >> 2009-07-06 11:40:20 CESTLOG: unexpected EOF on client connection >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Our application runs on Linux in the production environment, but all >> the developers works on Windows with local PG installations. Some of >> them are getting the error - some don't. >> . >> It's really big problem explaining to the people that PG is really >> good database. >> >> Is there any chance to do something with it? > We'd love to, but noone with Windows development experience and > familiarity with how PostgreSQL works has yet to be able to reproduce > the problem. As you have a some people that are affected and some that > aren't, perhaps you can help figure out what triggers the bug. Can you > tell if there is any distinguishing factor between the two groups? > Maybe installation options chosen, other software that's installed > (particularly anti-virus or firewall packages), windows service pack > level, domain membership, particular hardware? -- Pozdrowienia, Wojciech Strzalka -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
