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

Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date: 2012-06-27 13:44:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Would Posix shmem help with that at all?  Why did you choose not to
>> use the Posix API, anyway?

> It seemed more complicated.  If we use the POSIX API, we've got to
> have code to find a non-colliding name for the shm, and we've got to
> arrange to clean it up at process exit.  Anonymous shm doesn't require
> a name and goes away automatically when it's no longer in use.

I see.  Those are pretty good reasons ...

> With respect to EXEC_BACKEND, I wasn't proposing to kill it, just to
> make it continue to use a full-sized sysv shm.

Well, if the ultimate objective is to get out from under the SysV APIs
entirely, we're not going to get there if we still have to have all that
code for the EXEC_BACKEND case.  Maybe it's time to decide that we don't
need to support EXEC_BACKEND on Unix.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2012-06-27 13:52:22
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2012-06-27 13:40:09
Subject: Re: Visual Studio 2012 RC

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