Re: making bgworkers without shmem access actually not have shmem access

From: Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: making bgworkers without shmem access actually not have shmem access
Date: 2014-05-07 19:00:37
Message-ID: 536A82D5.10709@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 07/05/14 20:37, Robert Haas wrote:
> At a minimum, it's got to be better than the status quo, where shared
> memory is accessible throughout the entire lifetime of
> non-shmem-access background workers.
>

Seems reasonable to me, it might need to be revisited to at least try to
figure out if we can make EXEC_BACKEND safer, but it's definitely better
than the current state.

--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-05-07 19:05:03 Re: Wanted: jsonb on-disk representation documentation
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-05-07 18:58:02 Re: proposal: Set effective_cache_size to greater of .conf value, shared_buffers