Re: Need help with phys backed shm segments (Postgresql+FreeBSD).

From: Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Need help with phys backed shm segments (Postgresql+FreeBSD).
Date: 2000-12-05 20:04:09
Message-ID: 20001205120409.A8051@fw.wintelcom.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [001205 08:37] wrote:
> BTW, I just remembered that in 7.0.*, the SLocks that are managed by
> SpinAcquire() all live in their own little shm segment. On a machine
> where slock_t is char, it'd likely only amount to 128 bytes or so.
> Maybe you are seeing some bug in FreeBSD's handling of tiny shm
> segments?

Good call, i think I found it! :)

--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Guenter 2000-12-05 20:04:19 Re: Using Threads?
Previous Message Martin A. Marques 2000-12-05 19:58:24 Re: beta testing version