On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> (5) Default to POSIX, and allow for SysV as a compile-time option for
>>> platforms with poor POSIX memory support.
>>
>> OK, I did #5. Let's see how that works.
>
> Andrew pointed out upthread that, since platforms are unlikely to change
>
>> (5) Default to POSIX, and allow for SysV as a compile-time option for
>> platforms with poor POSIX memory support.
>
> OK, I did #5. Let's see how that works.
Andrew pointed out upthread that, since platforms are unlikely to change
what they support dynamically, we could do this at initdb ti
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Doesn't #2 negate all advantages of this effort? Bringing sysv
>>> management back on the table seems like a giant step backwards -- or
>>> am I missing something?
>>
>> Not unless there's no difference between "the default" and "the only op
On 2013-10-10 12:13:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> and on smew (Debian GNU/Linux 6.0), it
> fails with "Function not implemented", which according to a forum
> post[1] I found probably indicates that /dev/shm doesn't mount a tmpfs
> on that box.
It would be nice to get confirmed what the reason fo
Robert,
>> Doesn't #2 negate all advantages of this effort? Bringing sysv
>> management back on the table seems like a giant step backwards -- or
>> am I missing something?
>
> Not unless there's no difference between "the default" and "the only option".
Well, per our earlier discussion about "
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> (2) Default to using System V shared memory. If people want POSIX
>> shared memory, let them change the default.
>
> Doesn't #2 negate all advantages of this effort? Bringing sysv
> management back on the table seems like a giant step bac
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:13:20PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Since, as has been previously discussed in this forum on multiple
> occasions [citation needed], the default System V shared memory limits
> are absurdly low on many systems, the dynamic shared memory patch
> defaults to POSIX shared me
On 10/10/2013 02:45 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
(2) Default to using System V shared memory. If people want POSIX
shared memory, let them change the default.
After some consideration, I th
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Since, as has been previously discussed in this forum on multiple
> occasions [citation needed], the default System V shared memory limits
> are absurdly low on many systems, the dynamic shared memory patch
> defaults to POSIX shared memory, w
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> (2) Default to using System V shared memory. If people want POSIX
> >> shared memory, let them change the default.
> >
> >> After so
On 10/10/2013 02:35 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Other votes? Other ideas?
5) test and set it in initdb.
Are you advocating for that option, or just calling out that it's
possible? I'd say that's closely related to option #3, except at
initd
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> (2) Default to using System V shared memory. If people want POSIX
>> shared memory, let them change the default.
>
>> After some consideration, I think my vote is for option #2.
>
> W
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> (2) Default to using System V shared memory. If people want POSIX
> shared memory, let them change the default.
> After some consideration, I think my vote is for option #2.
Wouldn't that become the call of packagers? Wasn't there already so
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Other votes? Other ideas?
>
> 5) test and set it in initdb.
Are you advocating for that option, or just calling out that it's
possible? I'd say that's closely related to option #3, except at
initdb time rather than run-time - and it migh
On 10/10/2013 12:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
Since, as has been previously discussed in this forum on multiple
occasions [citation needed], the default System V shared memory limits
are absurdly low on many systems, the dynamic shared memory patch
defaults to POSIX shared memory, which has often b
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> (1) Define the issue as "not our problem". IOW, as of now, if you
> want to use PostgreSQL, you've got to either make POSIX shared memory
> work on your machine, or change the GUC that selects the type of
> dynamic shared memory used.
>
> (2)
Since, as has been previously discussed in this forum on multiple
occasions [citation needed], the default System V shared memory limits
are absurdly low on many systems, the dynamic shared memory patch
defaults to POSIX shared memory, which has often been touted as a
superior alternative [citation
17 matches
Mail list logo
