Re: dynamic shared memory: wherein I am punished for good intentions

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: dynamic shared memory: wherein I am punished for good intentions
Date: 2013-10-10 20:30:53
Message-ID: 52570E7D.7060504@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 10/10/2013 02:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> (2) Default to using System V shared memory. If people want POSIX
>>> shared memory, let them change the default.
>>> After some consideration, I think my vote is for option #2.
>> Wouldn't that become the call of packagers?
> Packagers can certainly override whatever we do, but we still need to
> make the buildfarm green again.
>
>

I really dislike throwing things over the wall to packagers like this,
anyway. Quite apart from anything else, not everyone uses pre-built
packages, and we should make things as as easy as possible for those who
don't, too.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2013-10-10 20:34:17 Re: dynamic shared memory: wherein I am punished for good intentions
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2013-10-10 20:30:10 Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation