> Really? Why? Because it was found to be lighter weight. See ยง5 (bottom of ppg 8).
https://kib.kiev.ua/kib/pgsql_perf.pdf > According to the notes in our code, named POSIX semaphores > are the least attractive of the three Unixoid semaphore APIs we support, > because they require eating a file descriptor per backend per > max_connection slot. That's a lot of FDs in any large configuration. > FreeBSD's support for SysV semaphores would have to be pretty darn awful > to make me think this was a good change, and I've not heard complaints > in that direction before. > > If you meant to propose using *unnamed* POSIX semaphores, that might be > a reasonable change, but it would still need some supporting evidence. https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-stable-10/2014-October/003515.html -sc -- Sean Chittenden s...@chittenden.org -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
