Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux?
Date: 2016-12-08 13:34:24
Message-ID: e501493b-e361-50db-dcb1-24e1402d9444@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/7/16 9:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Even with that change, dynamic shared memory is still vulnerable to be
>> removed.
> Really? I thought we concluded that it is safe because it is detectably
> attached to running processes.

The DSM implementation uses POSIX shared memory, which doesn't have an
attachment count like SysV shared memory.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2016-12-08 13:35:05 Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2016-12-08 13:07:49 PgConf.Russia 2017 Call for Papers