Excerpts from Daniel Farina's message of mar jun 26 17:40:16 -0400 2012: > On that, I used to be of the opinion that this is a good compromise (a > small amount of interlock space, plus mostly posix shmem), but I've > heard since then (I think via AgentM indirectly, but I'm not sure) > that there are cases where even the small SysV segment can cause > problems -- notably when other software tweaks shared memory settings > on behalf of a user, but only leaves just-enough for the software > being installed.
This argument is what killed the original patch. If you want to get anything done *at all* I think it needs to be dropped. Changing shmem implementation is already difficult enough --- you don't need to add the requirement that the interlocking mechanism be changed simultaneously. You (or whoever else) can always work on that as a followup patch. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
