Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Since mmap() is how everybody implements shared libraries,
>
> Now *there's* a sweeping generalization. Documentation of this
> claim, please?
I've seen a lot of shared library implementations (I used to be the
GNU binutils maintainer), and Nathan is ap
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> This is supported on Linux and BSD, but not on Solarix 7. It's not
> necessary; you can just map /dev/zero on SysV systems that don't
> have MAP_ANON.
HPUX says:
The mmap() function is supported for regular files. Support for any
other typ
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 11:28:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > It allows no backing store on disk.
>
> I.e. it allows you to map memory without an associated inode; the memory
> may still be swapped. Of course, there is no problem with mapping a
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Nathan Myers wrote:
> > While I've said before that I don't think it's really necessary for
> > processes that aren't children of the postmaster to access the shared
> > memory, I'm not sure that I want to go over to a mechanism that makes it
> > *impossible* for that to be d
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 11:28:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It allows no backing store on disk.
I.e. it allows you to map memory without an associated inode; the memory
may still be swapped. Of course, there is no problem with mapping an
inode too
