| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | POSIX shared memory patch status |
| Date: | 2011-06-16 15:51:15 |
| Message-ID: | 4DFA2673.3010009@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
What's the current state of the POSIX shared memory patch? I grabbed the
patch from
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/D9EDACF7-53F1-4355-84F8-2E74CD19D22D@themactionfaction.com
and it doesn't seem to apply cleanly any more. Are you planning to
continue working on it?
If I understood the conclusion of the discussions correctly, the current
plan is to continue using a small SysV shared memory segment for the
interlock, and POSIX shared memory for the rest. That lets us stay below
SHMMAX even if it's small, which is convenient for admins. Was there a
conclusion on whether we should use fnctl() to provide some extra safety
in the current interlock mechanism? I'm feeling that that should
probably be split off to a separate patch, it would be easier to review
separately.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-06-16 15:53:41 | Re: On-the-fly index tuple deletion vs. hot_standby |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-06-16 15:49:56 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |