From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: can we publish a aset interface? |
Date: | 2010-09-07 18:35:35 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=PhUp-oFUWYMx4=w50NoZqPTzzZKb2+TAtzx8_@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/9/7 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I don't see how you could do anything with this that you can't do with
>>> the existing implementation. It's not as if you can store pointers
>>> into an mmap'd block and then count on them being valid the next time
>>> you map the file... it might not end up at the same offset.
>>
>> you can, but you have to do preallocation and you have to use a FIXED flag.
>
> MAP_FIXED? As TFM says: "Because requiring a fixed address for a
> mapping is less portable, the use of this option is discouraged."
yes, I know. This will be used for proprietary Czech language - 95% of
postgresql instalations are on Linux, 10% on MS Windows (in Czech
Republic)
I don't plan to try to move this module to core. And it's useless -
other languages has not our problems.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise Postgres Company
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-07 18:38:42 | Re: git: uh-oh |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-09-07 18:31:14 | Re: can we publish a aset interface? |