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

Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date: 2012-06-26 21:13:36
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYKQvNQQ2UM_U7OHOcPart+SUmVKL5-Ajgrw1oXcHcOfA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Josh Berkus's message of mar jun 26 15:49:59 -0400 2012:
>> Robert, all:
>>
>> Last I checked, we had a reasonably acceptable patch to use mostly Posix
>> Shared mem with a very small sysv ram partition.  Is there anything
>> keeping this from going into 9.3?  It would eliminate a major
>> configuration headache for our users.
>
> I don't think that patch was all that reasonable.  It needed work, and
> in any case it needs a rebase because it was pretty old.

Yep, agreed.

I'd like to get this fixed too, but it hasn't made it up to the top of
my list of things to worry about.

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-06-26 21:17:12
Subject: Re: proof concept - access to session variables on client side
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-06-26 21:06:47
Subject: Re: tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples

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