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: "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date: 2012-06-26 23:30:09
Message-ID: 15869.1340753409@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"A.M." <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> writes:
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Daniel Farina wrote:
>> I'm simply suggesting that for additional benefits it may be worth
>> thinking about getting around nattach and thus SysV shmem, especially
>> with regard to safety, in an open-ended way.

> I solved this via fcntl locking.

No, you didn't, because fcntl locks aren't inherited by child processes.
Too bad, because they'd be a great solution otherwise.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2012-06-27 00:13:18
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/16] Introduce the ApplyCache module which can reassemble transactions from a stream of interspersed changes
Previous:From: Andres FreundDate: 2012-06-26 23:26:00
Subject: embedded list v2

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