| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: POSIX shared memory support |
| Date: | 2008-03-31 20:07:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20080331220757.6642227a@mha-laptop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
James Mansion wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yeah, I would be far more interested in this patch if it avoided
> > needing SysV shmem at all. The problem is to find an adequate
> > substitute for the nattch-based interlock against live children of
> > a dead postmaster.
> >
> >
> (confused) Why can't you use mmap of /dev/zero and inherit the fd
> into child processes?
> (simple enough to do something similar on Win32, even if the
> mechanism isn't identical)
This is what we do on win32 today. We don't use the sysv emulation
layer anymore.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-31 20:11:38 | Re: POSIX shared memory support |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-31 20:02:03 | Re: pgkill |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-31 20:11:38 | Re: POSIX shared memory support |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-31 19:54:12 | Re: POSIX shared memory support |