| From: | Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SSI patch version 14 |
| Date: | 2011-02-09 19:51:44 |
| Message-ID: | 4D52F050.7050504@bluegap.ch |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/09/2011 06:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:
>> Thread based, dynamically allocatable and resizeable shared memory, as
>> most other projects and developers use, for example.
I didn't mean to say we should switch to that model. It's just *the*
other model that works (whether or not it's better in general or for
Postgres is debatable).
> Or less invasively, a small sysv shm to prevent the double-postmaster
> problem, and allocate the rest using POSIX shm.
..which allows ftruncate() to resize, right? That's the main benefit
over sysv shm which we currently use.
ISTM that addresses the resizing-of-the-overall-shared-memory question,
but doesn't that require dynamic allocation or some other kind of
book-keeping? Or do you envision all subsystems to have to
re-initialize their new (grown or shrunken) chunk of it?
Regards
Markus Wanner
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-09 20:10:52 | Re: SSI patch version 14 |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-02-09 19:40:08 | Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT |