From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Takayuki Tsunakawa <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Chris Marcellino <maps(at)levelview(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Feature: POSIX Shared memory support |
Date: | 2007-02-07 13:32:50 |
Message-ID: | 20070207133250.GB23539@svr2.hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:08:51PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Takayuki Tsunakawa" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> writes:
> > From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> >> the POSIX API provides no way to detect whether anyone else is
> >> attached to the segment. Not being able to tell that is a tremendous
> >> robustness hit for us.
>
> > How is this done on Windows? Is it possible to count the number of
> > processes that attach a shared memory?
>
> AFAIK the Windows port is simply wrong/insecure on this point --- it's
> one of the reasons you'll never see me recommending Windows as the OS
> for a production Postgres server.
What exactly is the failure case? Might be able to figure out a way to
do what we want on win32 even if it's not possible to do it exactly with
the sysv semantics.
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-07 13:38:30 | Re: vcbuild needs strlcat |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-02-07 13:23:03 | vcbuild needs strlcat |