| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Dan Ports" <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: getting to beta |
| Date: | 2011-04-06 16:46:23 |
| Message-ID: | 29933.1302108383@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> ... The one I'm most
>> worried about is "SSI: three different HTABs contend for shared
>> memory in a free-for-all" - because there's no patch for that yet,
>> and I am wary of breaking something mucking around with it.
> I haven't seen any objection to Heikki's suggestion for how to
> handle the shared memory free-for-all:
I confess to not having been reading the discussions about SSI very
much, but ... do we actually care whether there's a free-for-all?
What's the downside to letting the remaining shmem get claimed by
whichever table uses it first?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-04-06 16:57:41 | Re: getting to beta |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-04-06 16:27:24 | Re: getting to beta |