Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: POSIX shared memory support
- From: James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>
- To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: POSIX shared memory support
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:37:45 +0100
- Message-id: <47F13D89.2020309@mansionfamily.plus.com> <text/plain>
Tom Lane wrote:
(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)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.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: POSIX shared memory support
- From: Magnus Hagander
- 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
- Prev by Date: Re: first time hacker ;) messing with prepared statements
- Next by Date: SPI support needed for EXECUTE USING
- Previous by thread: Re: POSIX shared memory support
- Next by thread: Re: POSIX shared memory support
- Indexes: