On 02/09/2011 06:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:
>> Thread based, dynamically allocatable and resizeable shared memory, as
>> most other projects and developers use, for example.
I didn't mean to say we should switch to that model. It's just *the*
other model that works (whether or not it's better in general or for
Postgres is debatable).
> Or less invasively, a small sysv shm to prevent the double-postmaster
> problem, and allocate the rest using POSIX shm.
..which allows ftruncate() to resize, right? That's the main benefit
over sysv shm which we currently use.
ISTM that addresses the resizing-of-the-overall-shared-memory question,
but doesn't that require dynamic allocation or some other kind of
book-keeping? Or do you envision all subsystems to have to
re-initialize their new (grown or shrunken) chunk of it?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-02-09 20:10:52|
|Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14|
|Previous:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2011-02-09 19:40:08|
|Subject: Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT|