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

Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date: 2012-07-03 16:02:21
Message-ID: 8657.1341331341@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 LaneDate: 2012-07-03 16:08:47
Subject: Re: User-Id Tracking when Portal was started
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-07-03 15:58:01
Subject: Re: Incorrect behaviour when using a GiST index on points

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