From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>, "Bruce Momjian" <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL Developers List" <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? |
Date: | 1999-09-20 06:27:48 |
Message-ID: | 000001bf0331$4211b200$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
> [mailto:owner-pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org]On Behalf Of Vadim Mikheev
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 2:34 PM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: PostgreSQL Developers List
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach?
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Or shmem inheritance is not portable?
> >
> > If it works on your machine with it removed, commit the change and I can
> > test it here. I don't know of any portability problems with shared
> > memory children.
>
> I wrote simple test program and it works under FreeBSD and Solaris
> (on Ultra). Currently I'm not able to do more. Actually, I worry
> does this work under MS Windows.
>
Where do we attach to shmem after fork() ?
I couldn't find the place.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vadim Mikheev | 1999-09-20 06:58:03 | Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? |
Previous Message | Dmitry Samersoff | 1999-09-20 05:53:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: HISTORY for 6.5.2 |