Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux?

From: Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux?
Date: 2016-12-11 07:04:27
Message-ID: CAMsr+YGXwBi96waPxp2fb2p4Lz3tkrA4QYsW9A0RDW+Tg3tgdQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11 Dec. 2016 07:44, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

I think we need to do at least this much for v10, because otherwise
we'll face ABI issues if an extension is compiled against code with
one semaphore API choice and used with code with a different one.

+1, this is a good idea. Your performance comments make sense too.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-12-11 07:17:42 Re: snapbuild woes
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2016-12-11 06:33:28 Re: [sqlsmith] Short reads in hash indexes