From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ian Lance Taylor <ian(at)airs(dot)com> |
Cc: | bierman(at)apple(dot)com, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: darwin pgsql patches |
Date: | 2000-12-05 17:28:59 |
Message-ID: | 14953.976037339@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Ian Lance Taylor <ian(at)airs(dot)com> writes:
> The POSIX semaphore interface comes from the pthreads work. In my
> opinion, the System V IPC calls are badly designed.
Badly implemented, I'll grant you --- the resource limits in a typical
configuration are ridiculously low. I'm not sure the API as such is
particularly good or bad.
> However, on systems which do fully implement POSIX semaphores, it
> should be easy for Postgres to use them. They should be created in
> the shared memory segment.
Huh? Are POSIX semaphores objects in user memory space, instead of
in the kernel? I'm getting more and more confused. Where can I find
a description of the POSIX version of semaphores?
BTW, should I expect that POSIX also ignored the SysV IPC spec for
shared memory?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2000-12-05 17:38:46 | Fixes for checking unique constraints on RI creation |
Previous Message | Ian Lance Taylor | 2000-12-05 17:22:25 | Re: darwin pgsql patches |