| From: | James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: POSIX shared memory support |
| Date: | 2008-03-31 19:37:45 |
| Message-ID: | 47F13D89.2020309@mansionfamily.plus.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-31 19:43:30 | SPI support needed for EXECUTE USING |
| Previous Message | James Mansion | 2008-03-31 19:26:01 | Re: first time hacker ;) messing with prepared statements |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-31 19:54:12 | Re: POSIX shared memory support |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2008-03-31 18:44:06 | Re: POSIX shared memory support |