Re: POSIX shared memory support

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Yeah, I would be far more interested in this patch if it avoided needing
> SysV shmem at all. The problem is to find an adequate substitute for
> the nattch-based interlock against live children of a dead postmaster.

Right, I had an idea about that but didn't really want to clutter the
response to the general idea with it. At least on Linux (I don't know
if it's the case elsewhere..), creating a POSIX shm ends up creating an
actual 'file' in /dev/shm/, which you might be able to count the
hard-links to in order to get an idea of the number of processes using
it? It was just a thought that struck me, not sure if it's at all
possible.

Thanks,

Stephen