On 02/09/2011 06:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch> wrote: >> Thread based, dynamically allocatable and resizeable shared memory, as >> most other projects and developers use, for example.
I didn't mean to say we should switch to that model. It's just *the* other model that works (whether or not it's better in general or for Postgres is debatable). > Or less invasively, a small sysv shm to prevent the double-postmaster > problem, and allocate the rest using POSIX shm. ..which allows ftruncate() to resize, right? That's the main benefit over sysv shm which we currently use. ISTM that addresses the resizing-of-the-overall-shared-memory question, but doesn't that require dynamic allocation or some other kind of book-keeping? Or do you envision all subsystems to have to re-initialize their new (grown or shrunken) chunk of it? Regards Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
