| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: OK, so culicidae is *still* broken |
| Date: | 2017-04-24 23:55:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YG3ndkagR5OTSfPG8+aXU-oJ7C=Hg12m7-fw_q9wY8RkA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 25 Apr. 2017 02:51, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
On 2017-04-24 11:08:48 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-24 23:14:40 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > In the long run we'll probably be forced toward threading or far
pointers.
>
> I'll vote for removing the windows port, before going for that. And I'm
> not even joking.
Just to clarify: I'm talking about far pointers here, not threading.
Yeah, I'm pretty unimpressed that the accepted solution seems to be to
return to the early '90s.
Why don't platforms offer any sensible way to reserve a virtual address
range at process creation time?
It looks like you need a minimal loader process that rebases its self in
memory if it finds its self loaded in the desired area, then maps the
required memory range and loads the real process. Hard to imagine that not
causing more problems than it solves.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-04-25 00:22:59 | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-24 23:47:09 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |