On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:25:35PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-04-21 17:21:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:08:51PM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote: > > > If the community had more *BSD presence I think it would be great > > > but it isn't all that viable at this point. I do know however that > > > no-one in this community would turn down a team of FreeBSD advocates > > > helping us make PostgreSQL awesome for PostgreSQL. > > > > I don't think we would even implement a run-time control for Linux or > > Windows for this, so I don't even think it is a FreeBSD issue. > > I think some of the arguments in this thread are pretty damn absurd. We > have just introduced dynamic_shared_memory_type.
I agree. The ideal is nobody wishing for an option, but I'd rather have the option if a non-theoretical set of users is feeling the pain of its absence. -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
