Peter Bierman <bierman(at)apple(dot)com> writes:
>> POSIX IPC isn't compatible with SysV IPC? News to me. Chapter and
>> verse, please?
> Didn't say that. They're just two different APIs for doing semaphores.
I'm still startled. Why would the POSIX guys have invented their own
API, rather than standardizing on the well-entrenched SysV IPC calls?
They did not have a charter to invent new stuff.
> Since PG uses it's own shim to go from internal functions to the SysV
> API, I'm asking if there'd be objection to me implementing the
> conditional code in src/backend/storage/ipc.c, having PG's shim use
> POSIX API directly.
No objection here, but I wonder whether you'll find that it helps.
The ipc.c code is so thin that it doesn't really hide any SysV
semantics. In particular, it will not help you to hack ipc.c if your
problem is that child processes don't inherit access to semaphores
created by their parent. (But that would be so impossibly brain-dead
that I do not believe it...)
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2000-12-05 16:23:55|
|Subject: Re: darwin pgsql patches |
|Previous:||From: Peter Bierman||Date: 2000-12-05 06:44:58|
|Subject: Re: darwin pgsql patches|