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

POSIX shared memory patch status

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: POSIX shared memory patch status
Date: 2011-06-16 15:51:15
Message-ID: 4DFA2673.3010009@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
What's the current state of the POSIX shared memory patch? I grabbed the 
patch from 
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/D9EDACF7-53F1-4355-84F8-2E74CD19D22D@themactionfaction.com 
and it doesn't seem to apply cleanly any more. Are you planning to 
continue working on it?

If I understood the conclusion of the discussions correctly, the current 
plan is to continue using a small SysV shared memory segment for the 
interlock, and POSIX shared memory for the rest. That lets us stay below 
SHMMAX even if it's small, which is convenient for admins. Was there a 
conclusion on whether we should use fnctl() to provide some extra safety 
in the current interlock mechanism? I'm feeling that that should 
probably be split off to a separate patch, it would be easier to review 
separately.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-06-16 15:53:41
Subject: Re: On-the-fly index tuple deletion vs. hot_standby
Previous:From: Florian PflugDate: 2011-06-16 15:49:56
Subject: Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files

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