| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux? |
| Date: | 2016-12-07 04:57:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSTcsob2RuHd9fYrCqPh6Z67cEM9cKDt2hko=47gq0x9A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Urk. That sounds like a scary thing to back-patch. The fact that the
> buildfarm has reported no problems is good as far as it goes, but user
> environments can be expected to be considerably more diverse than the
> buildfarm. I wouldn't mind giving users the option to select unnamed
> POSIX semas, but I don't think there's any guarantee that that's 100%
> certain to work every place where the current implementation works -
> and if not, then people will upgrade to the latest minor release and
> everything will completely stop working.
Potential risks involving minor upgrades are far higher than the risks
involved by systemd, so -1 for a backpatch seen from here.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2016-12-07 05:13:41 | Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-12-07 04:54:43 | Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux? |