On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 2:16 PM, A.M. <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2011 04:16 PM, David Fetter wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 09:09:48PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>> Frankly, I think this is an example of how our current shared memory
>>>>> model is a piece of garbage.
>>>> What other model(s) might work better?
>>> Thread based, dynamically allocatable and resizeable shared memory, as
>>> most other projects and developers use, for example.
>> Or less invasively, a small sysv shm to prevent the double-postmaster
>> problem, and allocate the rest using POSIX shm.
> Such a patch was proposed and rejected:
I know. We need to revisit that for 9.2 and un-reject it. It's nice
that PostgreSQL can run on my thermostat, but it isn't nice that
that's the only place where it delivers the expected level of
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2011-02-09 19:40:08|
|Subject: Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-02-09 19:34:16|
|Subject: Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1|