From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |
Date: | 2012-06-28 11:31:52 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZG5Bzf90+R2H38e8R_Z2Mx050oNNgmR96B2URfZ+JfRQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> Do we really need a runtime check for that? Isn't a configure check
> enough? If they *do* deploy postgresql 9.3 on something that old,
> they're building from source anyway...
[...]
>
> Could we actually turn *that* into a configure test, or will that be
> too complex?
I don't see why we *couldn't* make either of those things into a
configure test, but it seems more complicated than a runtime test and
less accurate, so I guess I'd be in favor of doing them at runtime or
not at all.
Actually, the try-a-one-page-mapping-and-see-if-you-get-EINVAL test is
so simple that I really can't see any reason not to insert that
defense. The fork-and-check-whether-it-really-works test is probably
excess paranoia until we determine whether that's really a danger
anywhere.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-06-28 12:16:11 | Re: Patch: Fix for a small tipo (space lost) |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-06-28 11:05:42 | Re: Posix Shared Mem patch |