From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
Date: | 2012-06-26 21:41:44 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZX4WfwS8YpJty+Lh3yo2d3yJqSATi+obAPDPsub+33jw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 6/26/12 2:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of mar jun 26 15:49:59 -0400 2012:
>>>> Robert, all:
>>>>
>>>> Last I checked, we had a reasonably acceptable patch to use mostly Posix
>>>> Shared mem with a very small sysv ram partition. Is there anything
>>>> keeping this from going into 9.3? It would eliminate a major
>>>> configuration headache for our users.
>>>
>>> I don't think that patch was all that reasonable. It needed work, and
>>> in any case it needs a rebase because it was pretty old.
>>
>> Yep, agreed.
>>
>> I'd like to get this fixed too, but it hasn't made it up to the top of
>> my list of things to worry about.
>
> Was there a post-AgentM version of the patch, which incorporated the
> small SySV RAM partition? I'm not finding it.
To my knowledge, no.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-06-26 21:44:13 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-06-26 21:40:16 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |