Re: dynamic shared memory: wherein I am punished for good intentions

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Doesn't #2 negate all advantages of this effort? Bringing sysv
>>> management back on the table seems like a giant step backwards -- or
>>> am I missing something?
>>
>> Not unless there's no difference between "the default" and "the only option".
>
> Well, per our earlier discussion about "the first 15 minutes", there
> actually isn't a difference.

Harsh. :-)

> I can only see two reasonable alternatives:
>
> This one:
>> (3) Add a new setting that auto-probes for a type of shared memory
>> that works. Try POSIX first, then System V. Maybe even fall back to
>> mmap'd files if neither of those works.
>
> Or:
>
> (5) Default to POSIX, and allow for SysV as a compile-time option for
> platforms with poor POSIX memory support.

OK, I did #5. Let's see how that works.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company