| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Gilbert <dgilbert(at)velocet(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | "Thomas O'Connell" <tfo(at)monsterlabs(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: performance tuning: shared_buffers, sort_mem; swap |
| Date: | 2002-08-14 03:35:49 |
| Message-ID: | 4195.1029296149@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
David Gilbert <dgilbert(at)velocet(dot)ca> writes:
> I don't often ask a question, but it's been bugging me for some time:
> is there any reason why PostgreSQL must use SysV shared memory?
> Coming from the BSD camp, I've often pondered why it doesn't use
> BSD-style shared memory (which is often easier to allocate in the BSD
> world).
Well, I must say this is the first time I've heard of "BSD-style shared
memory". What are the syscalls? How portable is it? Does it have the
semantics we need (specifically, the ability to associate an ID with a
shmem segment, and the ability to discover whether any other processes
are attached to an existing shmem segment)?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Raymond Chui | 2002-08-14 12:09:36 | How to execute my trigger when update certain columns but not all? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-14 01:43:36 | Re: pg_dumpall and pg_restore issues |