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

Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch
Date: 2012-06-28 11:31:52
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> Do we really need a runtime check for that? Isn't a configure check
> enough? If they *do* deploy postgresql 9.3 on something that old,
> they're building from source anyway...
> Could we actually turn *that* into a configure test, or will that be
> too complex?

I don't see why we *couldn't* make either of those things into a
configure test, but it seems more complicated than a runtime test and
less accurate, so I guess I'd be in favor of doing them at runtime or
not at all.

Actually, the try-a-one-page-mapping-and-see-if-you-get-EINVAL test is
so simple that I really can't see any reason not to insert that
defense.  The fork-and-check-whether-it-really-works test is probably
excess paranoia until we determine whether that's really a danger

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-06-28 12:16:11
Subject: Re: Patch: Fix for a small tipo (space lost)
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-06-28 11:05:42
Subject: Re: Posix Shared Mem patch

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