From: | Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Shared memory changes in 9.4? |
Date: | 2014-05-28 05:49:50 |
Message-ID: | CAOtHd0DsZ7oNTDaJt8OP9gtxPM+hwA=8tAsHNTQHWBVEghfHCg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I think it would be good to understand why initdb isn't getting this
> right. Did you run initdb outside the LXC container, where /dev/shm
> would have worked, but then run postgres inside the LXC container,
> where /dev/shm does not work? I ask because initdb is supposed to be
> doing the same thing that postgres does, so it really ought to come to
> the same conclusion about what will and won't work.
You're absolutely right--I thought initdb was containerized as well, but
I looked at our code and this is exactly what's happening.
> ....We've already fixed a bunch of DSM-related issues
> as a result of the fact that the default *isn't* none, and I dunno how
> many of those we would have found if the default had been none.
For what it's worth, +1. I'm not sure whether or not we had a good reason
for
doing initdb outside the container, but it's definitely an aberrant
configuration,
and should not be taken as evidence that the current default is a problem.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-05-28 08:51:43 | Re: Code for user-defined type |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-05-28 03:23:51 | Re: Shared memory changes in 9.4? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-05-28 06:15:14 | Re: Proposing pg_hibernate |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-05-28 04:10:40 | Re: Spreading full-page writes |