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

Re: darwin pgsql patches

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2000-12-05 17:38:46
Subject: Fixes for checking unique constraints on RI creation
Previous:From: Ian Lance TaylorDate: 2000-12-05 17:22:25
Subject: Re: darwin pgsql patches

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