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

Re[2]: Re: [PATCHES] A patch for xlog.c

From: jamexu <jamexu(at)telekbird(dot)com(dot)cn>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re[2]: Re: [PATCHES] A patch for xlog.c
Date: 2001-02-27 02:27:22
Message-ID: 465675661.20010227102722@telekbird.com.cn (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hello Tom,

Tuesday, February 27, 2001, 12:23:25 AM, you wrote:

TL> This looks a lot like exchanging the devil we know (SysV shmem) for a
TL> devil we don't know.  Do I need to remind you about, for example, the
TL> mmap bugs in early Linux releases?  (I still vividly remember having to
TL> abandon mmap on a project a few years back that needed to be portable
TL> to Linux.  Perhaps that colors my opinions here.)  I don't think the
TL> problems with shmem are sufficiently large to justify venturing into
TL> a whole new terra incognita of portability issues and kernel bugs.

TL>                         regards, tom lane

the only problem is because if we need to tune Postermaster to use
large buffer while system havn't so many SYSV shared memory, in many
systemes, we need to recompile OS kernel, this is a small problem to install
PGSQL to product environment.

-- 
Best regards,
XuYifeng



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-02-27 02:31:07
Subject: Re: stuck spinlock
Previous:From: Kaare RasmussenDate: 2001-02-26 23:49:41
Subject: Re: Monitor status

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