Re: POSIX shared memory support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: POSIX shared memory support
Date: 2008-03-31 19:54:12
Message-ID: 19364.1206993252@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> Right, I had an idea about that but didn't really want to clutter the
> response to the general idea with it. At least on Linux (I don't know
> if it's the case elsewhere..), creating a POSIX shm ends up creating an
> actual 'file' in /dev/shm/, which you might be able to count the
> hard-links to in order to get an idea of the number of processes using
> it? It was just a thought that struck me, not sure if it's at all
> possible.

That's not gonna work on anything but Linux, AFAIK.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2008-03-31 19:55:06 Re: actualized SQL/PSM patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-03-31 19:52:46 Re: [HACKERS] ANALYZE getting dead tuple count hopelessly wrong

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2008-03-31 20:07:57 Re: POSIX shared memory support
Previous Message James Mansion 2008-03-31 19:37:45 Re: POSIX shared memory support