Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date: 2012-06-26 22:25:19
Message-ID: 14754.1340749519@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> So let's fix the 80% case with something we feel confident in, and then
> revisit the no-sysv interlock as a separate patch.  That way if we can't
> fix the interlock issues, we still have a reduced-shmem version of Postgres.

Yes.  Insisting that we have the whole change in one patch is a good way
to prevent any forward progress from happening.  As Alvaro noted, there
are plenty of issues to resolve without trying to change the interlock
mechanism at the same time.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2012-06-26 22:25:40
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Previous:From: A.M.Date: 2012-06-26 22:21:18
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group