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

Re: darwin pgsql patches

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <ian(at)airs(dot)com>, <bierman(at)apple(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: darwin pgsql patches
Date: 2000-12-05 21:48:39
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0012052247350.777-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane writes:

> How efficient are POSIX semaphores, anyway?  I wonder if we couldn't
> also replace spinlocks with them...

There are POSIX spinlocks as well, though I haven't actually seen one...

> >    BTW, should I expect that POSIX also ignored the SysV IPC spec for
> >    shared memory?
>
> > Yes.  POSIX.1 standardizes mmap instead.
>
> Another TODO item I suppose :-(

It's already there.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter BiermanDate: 2000-12-05 22:16:25
Subject: Re: darwin pgsql patches
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-05 19:59:16
Subject: Re: Fixes for checking unique constraints on RI creation

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