Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Davis <list-pgsql-hackers(at)empires(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: listen/notify argument (old topic revisited)
Date: 2002-07-03 10:21:32
Message-ID: 1025691692.23475.3.camel@taru.tm.ee
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 08:20, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Of course, a shared memory system probably is going to either do it
> > sequentailly or have its own index issues, so I don't see a huge
> > advantage to going to shared memory, and I do see extra code and a queue
> > limit.
>
> Is a shared memory implementation going to play silly buggers with the Win32
> port?

Perhaps this is a good place to introduce anonymous mmap ?

Is there a way to grow anonymous mmap on demand ?

----------------
Hannu

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Manfred Koizar 2002-07-03 10:26:33 Re: [PATCHES] Reduce heap tuple header size
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2002-07-03 08:46:55 BETWEEN Node & DROP COLUMN