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

Re: SSI patch version 14

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14
Date: 2011-02-09 19:36:25
Message-ID: AANLkTikB3T2x2UbYsKv-bT+RBmqBL53vSEG2QvArpPPJ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.general/94791

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
performance.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2011-02-09 19:40:08
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-02-09 19:34:16
Subject: Re: Sync Rep for 2011CF1

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