| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: can we publish a aset interface? |
| Date: | 2010-09-07 18:31:14 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=yTS3zkqVkBX_SRBg5nJNkUZX8YSp9XjN-JW06@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't see how you could do anything with this that you can't do with
>> the existing implementation. It's not as if you can store pointers
>> into an mmap'd block and then count on them being valid the next time
>> you map the file... it might not end up at the same offset.
>
> you can, but you have to do preallocation and you have to use a FIXED flag.
MAP_FIXED? As TFM says: "Because requiring a fixed address for a
mapping is less portable, the use of this option is discouraged."
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-09-07 18:35:35 | Re: can we publish a aset interface? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-07 18:27:36 | Re: Synchronous replication - patch status inquiry |