Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 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: James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: POSIX shared memory support
Date: 2008-03-31 20:23:32
Message-ID: 20080331222332.697da90e@mha-laptop (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > James Mansion wrote:
> >> (confused) Why can't you use mmap of /dev/zero and inherit the fd
> >> into child processes?
> > This is what we do on win32 today. We don't use the sysv emulation
> > layer anymore.
> Did we ever find an interlock that makes the win32 implementation
> safe against the postmaster-dead-children-still-alive scenario?

Yes. I don't remember the details offhand (and I'm at the airport right
now), but the code that I put in there passed all those checks that we
could think of. (The one that the old, sysv emulating, code didn't as


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: korryDate: 2008-03-31 22:55:15
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection to PostgreSQL Using Certificate: Wrong Permissions on Private Key File
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2008-03-31 20:18:36
Subject: Re: pgkill

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-03-31 21:36:29
Subject: Re: Consistent \d commands in psql
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-03-31 20:14:53
Subject: Re: Ordered Append WIP patch v1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group