From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Michael Blakeley <mike(at)blakeley(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: shmem_seq may be a bad idea |
Date: | 2000-05-02 15:52:33 |
Message-ID: | 4046.957282753@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>> A while ago while thinking about a way to make ipcclean better I thunk
>> that perhaps the postmaster should write the keys of the segments it gets
>> to a flat-text file.
> Hmm. Could we write this to a separate shared memory segment? Much
> more likely to be of fixed length and compatible between versions, and
> more likely to exist or not exist with the same behavior as the large
> shared memory segment under discussion??
What happens if you get a key collision with some other application
for that segment? Seems to me that using shmem to remember where you
put your shmem segments is dangerously circular ;-)
The flat text file is not a bad idea, but I think the logic I suggested
yesterday makes it unnecessary...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-05-02 15:56:14 | Hardcopy docs about ready |
Previous Message | Adam Haberlach | 2000-05-02 15:45:11 | Re: Patch submission |