Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Would Posix shmem help with that at all? Why did you choose not to
>> use the Posix API, anyway?
> It seemed more complicated. If we use the POSIX API, we've got to
> have code to find a non-colliding name for the shm, and we've got to
> arrange to clean it up at process exit. Anonymous shm doesn't require
> a name and goes away automatically when it's no longer in use.
I see. Those are pretty good reasons ...
> With respect to EXEC_BACKEND, I wasn't proposing to kill it, just to
> make it continue to use a full-sized sysv shm.
Well, if the ultimate objective is to get out from under the SysV APIs
entirely, we're not going to get there if we still have to have all that
code for the EXEC_BACKEND case. Maybe it's time to decide that we don't
need to support EXEC_BACKEND on Unix.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2012-06-27 13:52:22|
|Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2012-06-27 13:40:09|
|Subject: Re: Visual Studio 2012 RC|