| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: POSIX shared memory support |
| Date: | 2008-03-31 19:54:12 |
| Message-ID: | 19364.1206993252@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Right, I had an idea about that but didn't really want to clutter the
> response to the general idea with it. At least on Linux (I don't know
> if it's the case elsewhere..), creating a POSIX shm ends up creating an
> actual 'file' in /dev/shm/, which you might be able to count the
> hard-links to in order to get an idea of the number of processes using
> it? It was just a thought that struck me, not sure if it's at all
> possible.
That's not gonna work on anything but Linux, AFAIK.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2008-03-31 19:55:06 | Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-31 19:52:46 | Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2008-03-31 20:07:57 | Re: POSIX shared memory support |
| Previous Message | James Mansion | 2008-03-31 19:37:45 | Re: POSIX shared memory support |