From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: dynamic shared memory: wherein I am punished for good intentions |
Date: | 2013-10-10 20:00:22 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0wMYbf-90xpENdUCEpm+HiJb3=yTO8FnPosvFHDPMtEJw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Since, as has been previously discussed in this forum on multiple
> occasions [citation needed], the default System V shared memory limits
> are absurdly low on many systems, the dynamic shared memory patch
> defaults to POSIX shared memory, which has often been touted as a
> superior alternative [citation needed]. Unfortunately, the buildfarm
> isn't entirely happy with this decision. On buildfarm member anole
> (HP-UX B.11.31), allocation of dynamic shared memory fails with a
> "Permission denied" error, and on smew (Debian GNU/Linux 6.0), it
> fails with "Function not implemented", which according to a forum
> post[1] I found probably indicates that /dev/shm doesn't mount a tmpfs
> on that box.
>
> What shall we do about this? I see a few options.
>
> (1) Define the issue as "not our problem". IOW, as of now, if you
> want to use PostgreSQL, you've got to either make POSIX shared memory
> work on your machine, or change the GUC that selects the type of
> dynamic shared memory used.
>
> (2) Default to using System V shared memory. If people want POSIX
> shared memory, let them change the default.
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?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/interactive/kernel-resources.html#SYSVIPC
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Farina | 2013-10-10 20:14:28 | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-10 19:58:27 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |