Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: POSIX shared memory support
- From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
- To: James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>
- Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: POSIX shared memory support
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:07:57 +0200
- Message-id: <20080331220757.6642227a@mha-laptop> <text/plain>
James Mansion wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Yeah, I would be far more interested in this patch if it avoided > > needing SysV shmem at all. The problem is to find an adequate > > substitute for the nattch-based interlock against live children of > > a dead postmaster. > > > > > (confused) Why can't you use mmap of /dev/zero and inherit the fd > into child processes? > (simple enough to do something similar on Win32, even if the > mechanism isn't identical) This is what we do on win32 today. We don't use the sysv emulation layer anymore. //Magnus
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: POSIX shared memory support
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: POSIX shared memory support
- References:
- Re: POSIX shared memory support
- From: Stephen Frost
- Re: POSIX shared memory support
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: POSIX shared memory support
- From: James Mansion
- Re: POSIX shared memory support
- Prev by Date: Re: pgkill
- Next by Date: Re: POSIX shared memory support
- Previous by thread: Re: POSIX shared memory support
- Next by thread: Re: POSIX shared memory support
- Indexes: