From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
Date: | 2012-06-27 04:00:49 |
Message-ID: | 20486.1340769649@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So, here's a patch. Instead of using POSIX shmem, I just took the
> expedient of using mmap() to map a block of MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS
> memory. The sysv shm is still allocated, but it's just a copy of
> PGShmemHeader; the "real" shared memory is the anonymous block. This
> won't work if EXEC_BACKEND is defined so it just falls back on
> straight sysv shm in that case.
Um. I hadn't thought about the EXEC_BACKEND interaction, but that seems
like a bit of a showstopper. I would not like to give up the ability
to debug EXEC_BACKEND mode on Unixen.
Would Posix shmem help with that at all? Why did you choose not to
use the Posix API, anyway?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-27 04:07:45 | Re: Optimizer Path Candidates difference in 9.1.3 and 9.2 beta1 |
Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2012-06-27 03:53:40 | Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed |