Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Shared memory
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
- Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PL/Java Development <Pljava-dev(at)gborg(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: Shared memory
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 11:38:03 -0500
- Message-id: <2966(dot)1143563883(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> writes: > This FENCED/NOT FENCED terminology would be a good way to > differentiate between the two approaches. Any chance of that syntax > making it into the PostgreSQL grammar, should the need arise? Of what value would it be to have it in the grammar? The behavior would be entirely internal to any particular PL in any case. regards, tom lane
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Thomas Hallgren
- Re: Shared memory
- References:
- Shared memory
- From: Thomas Hallgren
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Martijn van Oosterhout
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Thomas Hallgren
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Thomas Hallgren
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Simon Riggs
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Thomas Hallgren
- Shared memory
- Prev by Date: Re: Why are default encoding conversions
- Next by Date: Re: Why are default encoding conversions
- Previous by thread: Re: Shared memory
- Next by thread: Re: Shared memory
- Indexes: