From: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports |
Date: | 2002-05-03 15:02:25 |
Message-ID: | 3CD2A681.5F3B9FB4@mohawksoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > All I'm planning on doing is changing the appropriate shm_* functions iwth
> > pg_shm_* functions ... if !(libapr), all those pg_shm_* functions will
> > have in them is the original call we've always used ... there will even be
> > a --disable-libapr configure option so that if someone already has Apache2
> > installed, but doesn't wanna use libapr for PgSQL, they don't have to ...
>
> > Basically, all I'm looking at is allowing PgSQL to use a different library
> > for its shared memory calls then the standard one, nothing else ...
>
> Oh. I guess my next question is how closely that Apache library
> emulates the SysV shmem semantics. In particular, can you reliably
> tell how many processes are attached to a shmem block? (Cf
> SharedMemoryIsInUse() in storage/ipc/ipc.c) Without that feature we
> have an interlock problem.
I am not familiar with the Apache code, but I see no reason why all the
features in SysV SHM should not be implementable in a Windows modules. IMHO
that's what should be done.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | mlw | 2002-05-03 15:11:23 | Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-05-03 14:54:27 | Re: HEADS UP: Win32/OS2/BeOS native ports |