> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, but typical SysV shared memory limits are much lower than
> > > > per-process limits.
> > >
> > > well, come up with suitable patches for v7.2 and we can see where it goes
> > > ... you seem to think mmap() will do what we require, but, so far, have
> > > been unable to convince anyone to dedicate the time to converting to using
> > > it. "having to raise/set SysV limits", IMHO, isn't worth the overhaul
> > > that I see having to happen, but, if you can show us the benefits of doing
> > > it other then removing a 'one time administrative config' of an OS, I
> > > imagine that nobody will be able to argue it ...
> >
> > Yea, it is pretty low priority, especially since most OS's don't support
> > ANON mmap(). Most BSD's support it, but I don't think Linux or others
> > do.
>
> ah, then not a low priority, a non-starter, period ... maybe when all the
> OSs we support move to supporting ANON mmap() :(
Yea, we would have to take a poll to see if the majority support it.
Right now, I think it is clearly a minority, and not worth the added
confusion for a few platforms.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
