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

Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date: 2012-06-26 21:53:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Excerpts from Daniel Farina's message of mar jun 26 17:40:16 -0400 2012:

> On that, I used to be of the opinion that this is a good compromise (a
> small amount of interlock space, plus mostly posix shmem), but I've
> heard since then (I think via AgentM indirectly, but I'm not sure)
> that there are cases where even the small SysV segment can cause
> problems -- notably when other software tweaks shared memory settings
> on behalf of a user, but only leaves just-enough for the software
> being installed.

This argument is what killed the original patch.  If you want to get
anything done *at all* I think it needs to be dropped.  Changing shmem
implementation is already difficult enough --- you don't need to add the
requirement that the interlocking mechanism be changed simultaneously.
You (or whoever else) can always work on that as a followup patch.

Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2012-06-26 22:05:27
Subject: Re: Catalog/Metadata consistency during changeset extraction from wal
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-06-26 21:53:26
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group