| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ian Lance Taylor <ian(at)airs(dot)com>, <bierman(at)apple(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: darwin pgsql patches |
| Date: | 2000-12-05 21:48:39 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0012052247350.777-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane writes:
> How efficient are POSIX semaphores, anyway? I wonder if we couldn't
> also replace spinlocks with them...
There are POSIX spinlocks as well, though I haven't actually seen one...
> > BTW, should I expect that POSIX also ignored the SysV IPC spec for
> > shared memory?
>
> > Yes. POSIX.1 standardizes mmap instead.
>
> Another TODO item I suppose :-(
It's already there.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Bierman | 2000-12-05 22:16:25 | Re: darwin pgsql patches |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-05 19:59:16 | Re: Fixes for checking unique constraints on RI creation |