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

Re: A patch for xlog.c

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Matthew Kirkwood <matthew(at)hairy(dot)beasts(dot)org>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A patch for xlog.c
Date: 2001-02-25 21:16:28
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.33.0102251715570.32140-100000@mobile.hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > > Yes, but typical SysV shared memory limits are much lower than
> > > per-process limits.
> >
> > well, come up with suitable patches for v7.2 and we can see where it goes
> > ... you seem to think mmap() will do what we require, but, so far, have
> > been unable to convince anyone to dedicate the time to converting to using
> > it.  "having to raise/set SysV limits", IMHO, isn't worth the overhaul
> > that I see having to happen, but, if you can show us the benefits of doing
> > it other then removing a 'one time administrative config' of an OS, I
> > imagine that nobody will be able to argue it ...
>
> Yea, it is pretty low priority, especially since most OS's don't support
> ANON mmap().  Most BSD's support it, but I don't think Linux or others
> do.

ah, then not a low priority, a non-starter, period ... maybe when all the
OSs we support move to supporting ANON mmap() :(


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-02-25 21:17:40
Subject: Re: A patch for xlog.c
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-02-25 20:36:35
Subject: Re: A patch for xlog.c

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-02-25 21:17:40
Subject: Re: A patch for xlog.c
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-02-25 20:36:35
Subject: Re: A patch for xlog.c

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