| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: same-address mappings vs. relative pointers |
| Date: | 2013-12-05 14:00:42 |
| Message-ID: | 20131205140042.GG14419@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-12-05 15:57:22 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> As a side-note, I've been thinking that we don't really need same-address
> mapping for shared_buffers either. Getting rid of it wouldn't buy us
> anything right now, but if we wanted e.g to make shared_buffers changeable
> without a restart, that would be useful.
I doubt it's that easy to gid of atm (at least in !EXEC_BACKEND), but if
we ever want to properly support ALSR in EXEC_BACKEND environments, we
might need to go there. The hacks windows does around it are already
quite ugly.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-05 14:18:17 | Re: Performance optimization of btree binary search |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-05 13:58:55 | Re: Performance optimization of btree binary search |