Re: POSIX shared memory patch status

On 16.06.2011 20:22, A.M. wrote:
> I don't believe any conclusions were reached because the debate concerned whether or not fcntl locking was sufficient. I thought so while others pointed out that the proposed interlock would not work with mutli-client NFSv3 despite the fact that the current interlock doesn't either.
>
> I originally made the patch because SysV memory sometimes requires reboots which is especially annoying when expanding an existing production db server. Even if the next version of postgresql incorporates a hybrid SysV/POSIX shmem setup, reboots may still be required if one runs any other processes requiring SysV shmem (such as older versions of postgresql).
>
> In any case, I lost interest in maintaining the patch and would not object to having the patch removed from the CommitFest.

Ok, I'll mark this as "returned with feedback" then. Thanks for your
efforts anyway!

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com