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 Grittner||Date: 2012-06-26 22:05:27|
|Subject: Re: Catalog/Metadata consistency during changeset
extraction from wal|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-06-26 21:53:26|
|Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch|