On Mon February 6 2006 05:17, Mark Woodward wrote:
> I posted some source to a shared memory sort of thing to the group, as
> well as to you, I believe.
Indeed, and it looks rather interesting. I'll have a look through it
when I
have a chance...
So, after more discussion and exp
On Sun February 5 2006 16:16, Tom Lane wrote:
> AFAICT the data structures you are worried about don't have any readily
> predictable size, which means there is no good way to keep them in
> shared memory --- we can't dynamically resize shared memory. So I think
> storing the rules in a table and
On Sun February 5 2006 14:11, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> This is the generally accepted method. Please remember that when
> sharing structures you have to worry about concurrency. So you need
> locking.
Of course - I have already implemented locking with semaphores (I may simply
use one big
