Re: Feature: POSIX Shared memory support

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  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