Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tuesday, July 03, 2012 05:41:09 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd really rather not. If we're going to go in this direction, we
>> should just go there.
> I don't really care, just wanted to bring up that at least one experienced
> user would be disappointed ;). As the old implementation needs to stay around
> for EXEC_BACKEND anyway, the price doesn't seem to be too high.
Well, my feeling is that sooner or later, perhaps sooner, we are going
to want to be out from under SysV shmem (and semaphores) entirely.
The Linux kernel guys keep threatening to drop support for the feature.
So I think that exposing any knobs about this, or encouraging people
to rely on corner-case properties of SysV on their platform, is just
going to create more pain when we have to pull the plug.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-07-03 16:08:47|
|Subject: Re: User-Id Tracking when Portal was started|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-07-03 15:58:01|
|Subject: Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points|